Exploiting one's name to promote values/ideas a disservice?

[lordpasternack]

*Topic split from Tech forum discussion RD.net Down (viewable to logged in members only) - Charlou*



Yep. Noticed it. I'm wondering what they're gonna do...

I still have misgivings about having a forum dedicated to supposed clarity of thought going under the name of someone who has to look out for their public reputation - particularly when said person then chooses to stand back most of the time and delegate everything. To be honest, I even have misgivings about choosing to name a charity after oneself, that one has to maintain one's reputation for in the first place. It all seems a bit pointless and perhaps imprudent to me, all things considered - and could perhaps be construed as being self-aggrandising by some so inclined to construe it that way.

I recall during the Richard Dawkins Award drama on RD.net, Richard said something along the lines of: "Come on - do you think I'm the sort of person who'd name an award after myself?" And I felt the urge to state, innocently, that he'd already named a wide-ranging atheist-centered forum and a charity after himself... But I bit my tongue, knowing how offended he'd be, no matter how innocuously and straightforwardly I worded it, and how much his knee would jerk at such a comment. I suspect he may have noble reasons for the naming of these enterprises after himself, or maybe he didn't consider it - but I am genuinely quite curious.

I, honest to Christ, don't think I would ever name a charity after myself. Perhaps I'm basing that on having the gift of being able to consider this in depth without being in the position of trying to do such a thing. The idea embarrasses me. I can't really think of a good reason to do it. Perhaps to distinguish my charity from similar charities? Perhaps use my fame 'for the greater good' of attracting attention to my cause? I don't know... I'd just like to have a good reason to go ahead with it and quell that visceral embarrassment. But that's me and my foibles...

And I know this is all very tangential and remote from the main dramas afoot here, but it has and will continue to underpin a lot of them.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

LordP. I think you are still in your 'argument mode' here. Everyone else seems to have dropped the subject. Why not give it a rest?

Cheers.

[lordpasternack]

LordP. I think you are still in your 'argument mode' here. Everyone else seems to have dropped the subject. Why not give it a rest?

I'm not really. I'm just throwing up some background nigglings that have gone on inside me over the past x months. I'm not bringing up any particular incidents or anything - just a general feeling about something that I haven't quite managed to resolve satisfactorily since I started considering it back then.

I know for a fact that no-one is going to go to the lengths of renaming shit because of some limpid insight I seem to be making - but I just felt the need to air my curiosity about why some things are so in the first place... It just niggles me slightly.

[charlou]

I know where you're coming from, lordp. I think it's just one of the reasons many people perceive and refer to a 'cult of Dawkins'.

[floppit]

There are big problems with following fame, not least of which is that the affection for the person does nothing to aid critical thinking. I happen to think it's also error prone to name anything 'An Oasis of Clear Thinking', especially a forum open to anyone. If we human beings had clear thinking nailed down so easily all it would take is a couple of paradigm shifts and voila - no more arguments rather than debates, not something I've ever personally witnessed, and definitely not observable at RDF.

Honestly, I know for a fact I don't think clearly, it is something I work hard towards and something I challenge myself on daily but I'm still utterly aware of emotions and bias - I notice it, I notice my own keenness to hear research that supports my own beliefs; like yesterday morning rewinding my radio (clever radio!) to hear the longitudinal happiness study results because I already knew of the study and knew it was likely to confirm my own outlook. I noticed my hunger.

I had a hunch I wasn't going to fit at RDF when the profile question popped up - Have you read TGD? Nothing could make me avoid reading it more, it deeply disturbs me that it's part of every members profile, it reminds me of the sanctity given to the bible. That's not a critique of the book BTW, I haven't read it, it's a critique of the reverence given to it's contents.

All my instincts scream that it's a fast road to nowhere, the same instincts that left religion with no hold on me. I want clear thinking, I haven't got it but I want it and I don't like groups where questioning is ill received, I'm not so bloody ace as to avoid picking up the same bad habits if I hang around.

[klr]

There are big problems with following fame, not least of which is that the affection for the person does nothing to aid critical thinking. I happen to think it's also error prone to name anything 'An Oasis of Clear Thinking', especially a forum open to anyone. If we human beings had clear thinking nailed down so easily all it would take is a couple of paradigm shifts and voila - no more arguments rather than debates, not something I've ever personally witnessed, and definitely not observable at RDF.

Honestly, I know for a fact I don't think clearly, it is something I work hard towards and something I challenge myself on daily but I'm still utterly aware of emotions and bias - I notice it, I notice my own keenness to hear research that supports my own beliefs; like yesterday morning rewinding my radio (clever radio!) to hear the longitudinal happiness study results because I already knew of the study and knew it was likely to confirm my own outlook. I noticed my hunger.

I had a hunch I wasn't going to fit at RDF when the profile question popped up - Have you read TGD? Nothing could make me avoid reading it more, it deeply disturbs me that it's part of every members profile, it reminds me of the sanctity given to the bible. That's not a critique of the book BTW, I haven't read it, it's a critique of the reverence given to it's contents.

All my instincts scream that it's a fast road to nowhere, the same instincts that left religion with no hold on me. I want clear thinking, I haven't got it but I want it and I don't like groups where questioning is ill received, I'm not so bloody ace as to avoid picking up the same bad habits if I hang around.

The website and forum were launched around the time TGD was published. Actually I think that the website may have been in place a few months earlier.

But that's neither here nor there. The "Have you read TGD?" question is merely an attempt to prevent bots and the like from automatically registering. The question could have been about anything. I don't think the answer is included in a user's personal profile BTW.

[Animavore]

I don't think the answer is included in a user's personal profile BTW.

It is. I just checked mine.

[klr]

I don't think the answer is included in a user's personal profile BTW.

It is. I just checked mine.

I stand corrected.

But then again, my profile also records that I'm human. Maybe I should change that ...

[Drewish]

I can totally see where the OP is coming from. Nothing makes intelligent people say stupid shit pr compromise on their values like an audience. To give a slightly self-deprecating example, the creator of the philosophy I follow (Ayn Rand) was a perfectly logical person. But when she got a large enough following, she started being surrounded by a bunch of yes men and the like and it wasn't until a fall from grace that alienated some of her followers that she started making sense again. Bill Maher is another good example. Want somebody to start acting like a jackass? Give them a studio audience. And don't even get me started on the megalomaniac dip-shits known as Hollywood actors. Honestly, any cause should stand on it's own. Celebrity is just one big argument from authority. And there's a lot of charitable giving that hasn't worked or been used for arguably immoral ends to prove just how close to a true belief religion celebrity sponsored charities can be. As an aside, I'm a big fan of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, specifically because they let the people being helped frame the nature of the show, and rarely advocate a political / religious / ideological point of view (I say rarely because of that one 911 police officer episode.) It's just about sponsors and volunteers choosing to help people in need, for their own reasons, be they good will, faith, or advertising.

[Animavore]

Nothing makes intelligent people say stupid shit like an audience.

There's a new book about Dawkins (can't remember the name sorry) of which I read the review for in Focus magazine (BBC science magazine) which was written by a reviewer clearly disapproving of Dawkins and apparently one of the criticisms (not much of a criticism in my view) was that his followers on the website have him in a position where he can "never turn back even if he wants to". She was basically saying there's a lot of asshats on RDF.
I left the magazine in my friends. I'll get it later and tell you what it says exactly.

[charlou]

Richard Dawkins has always been up front about his motives and agenda from what I have seen. He wants to promote science and reason (clear thinking) and I think he's sincere in both that and his methods of achieving it.

In my previous post I mentioned that many people perceive a 'cult of Dawkins', but I forgot to add that I, myself, don't perceive it that way at all. I can understand why others do, though; a few reasons for which have been posted in this thread ... and very interesting observations they are, too.

[Sisifo]

I can only add a couple of thoughts:

Most of the charities, fundations and fundraiser associations, have the name of the stablisher or its chairman -wether real or honorary-. And using the eventual fame of its members is a very important tactic. Even more generic charities, use to appoint VIPs or famous people as the charity face and reputation.
Ethical or not... My personal view is: It's charity, it works, then use it.

Secondly, purposedly or not, fair or not, the public appearence and echo -even from its detractors and intellectual adversaries- of Dawkins' works has reached the point of branding or labelling a set of values. When they are in tone, I think it would be silly not to use that branding... If you see a "Richard Dawkins Fundation" you don't need to crack your brain about the goals of the fundation. If the charity was, for example, to extend bible studies at universities, then the use of his name would be unethical.

And as for the "Oasis of Clear Thought", well... after all, he is Brittish... "Fog in Channel; Continent Cut Off"

[lordpasternack]

My own thoughts were more about the appropriateness or expedience of attaching one's name to a charity or online community - not the ethics, really, as such. RD.net is about far more than Richard Dawkins or his works, or ideas, for example - and he doesn't even take much of a hand in maintaining the place on any level. It just doesn't seem appropriate to sum such a wide-ranging online community up with his name. And yes, it does imply - and possibly invite - a kind of cultishness towards Richard as a person.

(Imagine for talking sake that this site was called Pappa.com, or something...)

As for the charity, well, as I said, I'd have the same visceral embarrassment about naming such after myself as Richard feels about naming an award after himself. I said that I'd have to have good reason to reconsider that visceral embarrassment - and the bias of expedience would have to weigh quite heavily on the side of naming after myself.

Once again it kind of implies that it's all about Richard - that he himself possesses some special insight into, or approach to applying reason, science and clear-thinking, that we should all want a piece of. And as I said, it could be construed as self-aggrandising.

All things considered - it's something that, the more I think of it, the less well it sits with me.

[lordpasternack]

Honestly, I know for a fact I don't think clearly, it is something I work hard towards and something I challenge myself on daily but I'm still utterly aware of emotions and bias - I notice it, I notice my own keenness to hear research that supports my own beliefs; like yesterday morning rewinding my radio (clever radio!) to hear the longitudinal happiness study results because I already knew of the study and knew it was likely to confirm my own outlook. I noticed my hunger.

You're a country mile ahead of most mere mortals in that you do actually register this, though - and attempt to act on it appropriately with your rational brain.

One thing that helps, in my view, is the cherish the basic idea of having the 'correct' ideas, as opposed to cherishing and clinging to ideas that you'd like to be correct. You can force yourself to lay aside biases for a few precious moments, so that you might eventually get the reward of holding the ideas that conform most with reality.

[camoguard]

It's legal to use your own fame to promote your values. It's even ethical to do so. It is not ethical to use someone else's fame as proof that your values are correct. I like Dawkins though. I think he's interesting enough.