Factually Accurate Mockery

A few nights ago I was chilling with my friends and my boyfriend, eating dinner and talking about nothing in particular. I live with a pile of atheist/feminist/heathen types who are all very much on the same page in terms of politics and values. Somehow we ended up circling around topics like euthanasia and abortion (as we are wont to do), and some people started using the phrase “they believe” to describe the stated values of some local pro-life organizations. My boyfriend, while a social justicey type himself, is not quite as deeply integrated into the feminist and atheist movements as the rest of us are, and it appears he has some natural skepticism left.
“They who? Who believes that?” was his response to most of these assertions.
This particular conversation ended well enough, with some specifications about the particular group we were discussing and some viewpoints that tend to pair together in conservative circles, but I was reminded that it’s all too easy when you’re with an in group that clearly identifies themselves in a way similar to you to get sloppy with your thinking and your speech. As skeptics, we expect that people who disagree with us should avoid generalizations and be clear about who believes and says what, preferably with some citations or evidence (of course this isn’t always necessary when you’re just shootin the shit). When we overhear a religious individual saying “Well atheists think…” we get riled up because we know that we are a diverse group of people who don’t always think the same things.
Especially when it comes to the more extreme atheist viewopints, we’re careful not to lump ourselves all together. “I’m not like Richard Dawkins, I’m not Islamophobic!” we are quick to specify.
So why is it that so many feminists/atheists/skeptics get so sloppy when they’re talking about viewpoints they don’t hold themselves? I’m just as guilty of this as the next person, playing the “mock the MRAs game” whenever possible. Usually this parody includes peacocking, a fedora, and living with mom and dad. Is this necessary? No. Is it accurate? Probably not. There are more than enough real life MRAs who say and do horrible things. I don’t need to create a punching bag for my own amusement, particularly not if it means that I am unfairly representing other human beings and overlooking the complexities of human life.
It’s easy enough to call for the benefit of the doubt when you’re the one who’s being judged unfairly. And it’s easy to say that we don’t need to extend that courtesy to those with differing opinions when they’re the ones with all the privilege. It’s easy to think that this is some kind of argument about civility or taking the high road. It is none of these things. It is about intellectual honesty, and true curiosity. If you can point towards someone’s words and actions and truly see that they are shitty, then please, mock away. Rip them to shreds. Get angry. But vague statements about “them” and what “they” think, or generalized categories like “conservatives” don’t help us reach our goals. They muddy who is doing what and who those actions harm. When we say “MRAs are shitheads”, we don’t have any clue who we’re talking about or what they’re doing. We don’t end up with a plan of action. We just remind ourselves that we’re better and righter.
And yes, sometimes in group commiseration is important, sometimes these statements serve an emotional purpose rather than a practical one. Sometimes these generalizations are a rhetorical strategy (one tumblr post suggested metonymy, although metonymy is usually an attribute of a thing substituted for the thing rather than a thing substituted for an attribute). But there are better ways to fulfill these functions. There are absolutely ways to gripe and signal that you’re part of a community and blow off steam that are a little more concrete (we have a million Richard Dawkins examples to pick from). It’s certainly harder to be specific and careful with your words when you’re speaking emotionally, but overall I think we’re better served by practicing healthy thought patterns. And if your rhetorical strategy leads to confusion among your audience about what you’re actually saying (who are you really referring to) you can probably find a more effective way of saying what you’re saying.
I want to do better. I promise from now on that I will try to make my bashing of patriarchal assholes reality based. It’s not like I have a lack of material. Seriously, fuck this guy.


Olivia is a giant pile of nerd who tends to freak out about linguistic prescriptivism, gender roles, and discrimination against the mentally ill. By day she writes things for the Autism Society of Minnesota, and by night she writes things everywhere else. Check out her ongoing screeds against jerkbrains at

Related Articles


  1. I agree with what you are saying, but I will agrue that there is no reason that emotional speech need not be careful or specific.

    And that guy you linked to, I don’t know how people who are so wrong about almost everything could possibly believe they are absolutely right about it all. It must be hard to live in their world.

  2. Generic mockery is pleasurable and funny, but as you say, potentially damaging. I think one should be allowed to indulge occasionally, but if it becomes the rule rather than an exception, it goes from “obvious joke, not an attempt to argue” to “that’s all you’ve got, inaccurate mockery”.

    I think it’s important to also note how this ties in with the science behind the decision of a place like popular science to dissalow comments. The comments colour the readers impression of a text, and many rational, deliberating, careful bloggers who argue specifics and make sure to use sources allow a fairly high ratio of generic mockery in the comments. I think it’d be hard to rein that in by moderation by the author, but to the keep the impact of the actual work I think it’d be wise to work to instill a culture that minimizes the casual, generic “that’s just like _them_” type comments.

  3. I think the difficulty is when people stop realizing the joke is a joke. Besides, every MRA site has some stuff that simply invites ridicule. (In simple terms, like, maybe once or twice every 50 megabytes, they might have a point, but then they’re all hurf durf FEMINISM!!!1!1one and lose said point.)

    And of course, the internet makes people immediately lose their sense of humor without a winking smiley after it. ;) Even if people get Poe’s law all wrong.

  4. Broad acrimony online is probably a reaction to the “equal sides” nonsense that the MSM puts out. The snark may be closer to the truth, but it’s still not always accurate.

  5. When we’re having a serious discussion (not emotional rants), my partner and I do this to each other, challenging each other’s generalisations. I think this works best when it’s between people who can trust each other and are arguing in good faith.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button