The tweet that got Dawkins banned from NECSS

One eyed Jack · 29-01-2016 1:35pm

orubiru wrote: »

Atheism isn't an ideology though. It's a lack of belief in God(s). That's it.

How can something like that make progress?

A: Do you believe in God?
B: No.
...10 years later...
A: Do you believe in God?
B: No.

Boiled Water isn't a type of Tea.
Off is not a TV channel.

I don't really understand the insistence that "Atheism is a religion" or "Atheism is an Ideology". Can you explain it for me?

As simply as I can I suppose, I consider Atheism an ideology because it has one core idea - an absence, or a lack of belief in any deities. It's not meant in a derogatory way or any of the rest of it, it's simply meant as a descriptive term for an idea that all people who identify as atheist have in common. When I talk about the movement making progress, I mean the spread of atheism globally, making progress in increasing the numbers of people who identify as atheist.

Joe Exotic · 29-01-2016 1:55pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As simply as I can I suppose, I consider Atheism an ideology because it has one core idea - an absence, or a lack of belief in any deities. It's not meant in a derogatory way or any of the rest of it, it's simply meant as a descriptive term for an idea that all people who identify as atheist have in common. When I talk about the movement making progress, I mean the spread of atheism globally, making progress in increasing the numbers of people who identify as atheist.

I see where your coming from but when you say that Atheism has one "core" idea the implication is that there are other non core ideas and thats the point there isn't there is only that one thing a lack of belief in god.

If you want an ideology, there are loads out there which would typically include mostly Atheists such as sceptisim and humanism but atheism is not the same thing.

One idea only!!!

thats what is so good about it you are either in or out no arguments needed.

magicbastarder · 29-01-2016 1:59pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As simply as I can I suppose, I consider Atheism an ideology because it has one core idea - an absence, or a lack of belief in any deities.

i'm not sure we share the same definition of ideology. the ideology is the structure of ideas you build on top of the core idea of a lack of belief in a god, rather than the core idea itself.
so humanism is an ideology, but not atheism.

nozzferrahhtoo · 29-01-2016 1:59pm

murphk wrote: »

I see where your coming from but when you say that Atheism has one "core" idea the implication is that there are other non core ideas and thats the point there isn't there is only that one thing a lack of belief in god.

Indeed. And the majority of dictionary definitions I am finding for the word "idealogy" talk about things like a "system of ideas" or "body of doctrine" or "set of beliefs".

Taking one single claim or idea.... or worse in this case the ABSCENCE of one single claim or idea.... and acting like it is a "system" or "set" or "body" of ideas or beliefs is really quite the stretch, even for someone generally known to pretend English words and phrases mean other than they actually do.

orubiru · 29-01-2016 2:01pm

yellowlabrador wrote: »

How can atheism be an ideology?There's no 'right' way or 'wrong' way of being an atheist.

I think that treating atheism as an ideology is more of an American thing to be honest.

In the USA, if you want to be one of the "cool" kids then you absolutely do not support The Christian Right. In fact, you really want to be aggressively in opposition to the Christian Right and Trump etc. So, for many, being an Atheist is more than just "I don't believe in God". It an act of rebellion against the White Male Patriarchy or maybe rebellion against the antiquated beliefs of Mummy and Daddy. Something like that.

Over here you have guys like Richard Dawkins who, for me, are just skeptics and the existence of God is one of the many things they would be skeptical about. It shouldn't be too surprising to find them criticizing Islam or opposing the idea that "gender is a social construct" etc.

Skeptics will be skeptical and it's really up to you to provide the evidence and arguments that support your worldview. If you can't do that then you need to improve your data or your ability to make a reasonable argument. Banning someone because they criticize certain ideologies is pretty much the opposite of that.

For Americans like PZ Myers it's a little bit more difficult because they have "The Christian Right" to deal with. They have to consider crazies like the Westboro Baptist Church or "gun nuts" or White Supremacy groups etc. Sometimes being skeptical can lead you to a place where you basically agree with some horrible people on some specific points.

Can you imagine making a well reasoned, well presented, criticism of Islam and then these white christian fundamentalists, that you hate with a passion, are coming up to you and congratulating you on sticking it to "those damn Muslims"? That's not pleasant.

You have folks who are happy to support Bill Maher and Sam Harris as long as they are criticizing Christianity and making fun of Right-Wing Fundamentalist Christians but as soon as they have a pop at Muslims or Islam there are cries of "Islamophobia".

They are stuck in a trap. They don't believe in God and they hate the Christian Right. The Christian Right criticizes Islam. Atheists criticize Islam. Some people simply will not tolerate this overlap and so are only willing to be skeptical up to a point. If an aspect their skepticism leads them to a place where they might share a belief with some nut-job racists then they have to abandon that aspect.

That's what the Atheism+ movement really seemed to be when you look at it. They were basically saying that you can be a skeptic but not if your skepticism becomes problematic. You can say that the story of Noah's Ark is garbage and use a logical argument to make your point. However, you can't say that the Gender Pay Gap is garbage, even if you can use a logical argument to make your point.

When you get to that stage then I suppose Atheism really is an ideology for you.

"We are Atheists plus we care about social justice.
We are Atheists plus we support women's rights.
We are Atheists plus we protest racism.
We are Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia.
We are Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism"

That all sounds great but what happens when someone uses critical thinking and skepticism to question the finer points of these broad talking points?

When you'll invite Richard Dawkins to a conference on Science and Skepticism and will then dis-invite him because he openly criticizes Islam and is skeptical of some aspects of Feminism then you really are treating Atheism like an ideology at that stage.

One eyed Jack · 29-01-2016 2:04pm

murphk wrote: »

I see where your coming from but when you say that Atheism has one "core" idea the implication is that there are other non core ideas and thats the point there isn't there is only that one thing a lack of belief in god.

If you want an ideology, there are loads out there which would typically include mostly Atheists such as sceptisim and humanism but atheism is not the same thing.

One idea only!!!

thats what is so good about it you are either in or out no arguments needed.

Well the only reason I make an attempt to make the distinction if you will between atheism and non-religious is because atheists at least identify themselves as atheist, they're saying they have no belief in God, and that's grand, and then there are people who are offended if you refer to them as atheist.

My wife is one of them - has no interest in religion, has never been religious, takes no position on any lack of belief or absence of belief in deities. For her it's simply something that doesn't arise and there's no point entertaining something which as far as she's concerned doesn't exist and has no meaning in her life.

nozzferrahhtoo · 29-01-2016 2:14pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

For her it's simply something that doesn't arise and there's no point entertaining something which as far as she's concerned doesn't exist and has no meaning in her life.

Then she has my envy. I too would like never to deal with or concern myself with religion again. Never think about it. Just leave it "out there" as something "other people do" that does not affect me, in much the same way as I do Reality TV shows. No respect or time for it, but affects me not a jot, so I ignore it.

Alas I am just not let. The things I AM interested and invested in almost invariably have battle lines drawn in the field. And not by me, but by groups (often quite vocal and sometimes well bank rolled) of theists.

Sexuality, equal rights between sexes and sexuality divisions, bodily autonomy for people like women, education, politics, science, medicine, history, human rights, global peace, free speech, a free press, and much much more. Large areas where I am deeply invested and highly active. And every single one of them has the same problem.

I guess if someone is leading a life where they have no interest in those things, no investment in their success, then they will have no interest or need to defy religion or identify themselves in opposition to it. And as I said I envy them. I am not one of those people.

robindch · 29-01-2016 2:54pm

"On the Violence of the Safe Space"

http://brendanoneill.co.uk/post/137934715274/the-violence-of-the-safe-space

cowboyBuilder · 29-01-2016 4:20pm

robindch wrote: »

"On the Violence of the Safe Space"

http://brendanoneill.co.uk/post/137934715274/the-violence-of-the-safe-space

Excellent

pH · 29-01-2016 4:47pm

Our very own Michael Nugent on the matter ... well done Michael

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2016/01/29/offensive-satire/

One eyed Jack · 29-01-2016 5:55pm

pH wrote: »

Our very own Michael Nugent on the matter ... well done Michael

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2016/01/29/offensive-satire/

See there's the thing - in the first line, Michael claims that Richard retweeted a funny video, and then goes on to claim it was effective satire. That's a matter of opinion, solely focused on the content of the video, which Dawkins didn't even realise who was being satirised. In my opinion, the video was neither funny, nor effective satire. The intended social commentary was far too obvious. I didn't find it in any way offensive either. It was just crap.

The text of Richard's tweet however, was IMO, unnecessarily divisive - there was no need whatsoever for the passive disclaimer, and I think Richard's opinions on modern feminism are common knowledge, so when Richard says some elements of feminism are pernicious, and that he himself is a feminist, that's immediately divisive, and unnecessarily so. To then compare that pernicious element with the pernicious element in Islam, further compounded the divisive element in Richard's tweet.

I don't think he should have deleted his tweets, as he in no way participated in inciting hatred, violence or death threats against the people in question being caricatured in the video. I do think he should have done his research first though before retweeting or passing any comment about the pernicious elements of the ideologies he himself was attempting to satirise.

Satire is supposed to be clever and pointed, this was nothing more than a blunt attempt at being funny which fell flat on it's arse. I don't think he should have been uninvited from the event, but at least he can be proud of the fact that he would not want to be a member of any club or organisation that would have him as a member.

Bristolscale7 · 29-01-2016 6:43pm

Agreed jack, that video is not good satire, just ****e.

colossus-x · 30-01-2016 4:48am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You've spoken to them all then and they've given you permission to speak on behalf of atheists then? Or is it simply more likely that you can realistically only speak about what is or isn't relevant to you as an atheist?

I never said anything about atheists following anyone. I spoke of those high profile personalities as examples of atheists, not people anyone would necessarily base their opinion of atheists upon, if they have any common sense at least.

The above is the mindset of someone who hasn't read a post properly and had definitely misunderstood what was being said.

Clearly it does matter, or Dicky wouldn't have been uninvited for his latest twitter titsup. I never said any atheist was likely to become a theist because of it, but there are many theists who will never hear the benefits of atheism if these representatives of atheism keep getting themselves "no-platformed" and unable to speak, silenced and banned from public spaces and social media.

[Retract or I'll get banned]

colossus-x · 30-01-2016 5:26am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You've spoken to them all then and they've given you permission to speak on behalf of atheists then? Or is it simply more likely that you can realistically only speak about what is or isn't relevant to you as an atheist?

I never said anything about atheists following anyone. I spoke of those high profile personalities as examples of atheists, not people anyone would necessarily base their opinion of atheists upon, if they have any common sense at least.

The above is the mindset of someone who hasn't read a post properly and had definitely misunderstood what was being said.

Clearly it does matter, or Dicky wouldn't have been uninvited for his latest twitter titsup. I never said any atheist was likely to become a theist because of it, but there are many theists who will never hear the benefits of atheism if these representatives of atheism keep getting themselves "no-platformed" and unable to speak, silenced and banned from public spaces and social media.

[Retract or I'll get banned]

colossus-x · 30-01-2016 5:26am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You've spoken to them all then and they've given you permission to speak on behalf of atheists then? Or is it simply more likely that you can realistically only speak about what is or isn't relevant to you as an atheist?

I never said anything about atheists following anyone. I spoke of those high profile personalities as examples of atheists, not people anyone would necessarily base their opinion of atheists upon, if they have any common sense at least.

The above is the mindset of someone who hasn't read a post properly and had definitely misunderstood what was being said.

Clearly it does matter, or Dicky wouldn't have been uninvited for his latest twitter titsup. I never said any atheist was likely to become a theist because of it, but there are many theists who will never hear the benefits of atheism if these representatives of atheism keep getting themselves "no-platformed" and unable to speak, silenced and banned from public spaces and social media.

[Retract or I'll get banned]

One eyed Jack · 30-01-2016 5:52am

colossus-x wrote: »

[Retract or I'll get banned]

Hmm, I think I shall call that "doing a Dawkins" - Putting your foot in it, and then withdrawing your comments in the hope that nobody witnessed your error in judgement...

(Yes, I saw it

)

I think Hitchens said it better though, when asked his favorite virtue?

"An appreciation for irony"

colossus-x · 30-01-2016 6:05am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You've spoken to them all then and they've given you permission to speak on behalf of atheists then? Or is it simply more likely that you can realistically only speak about what is or isn't relevant to you as an atheist?

There is no 'them'. Atheists are not a demographic. We are not a 'group'. I pass an atheist on the street but I've no connection with them whatsoever. We are not weak minded like theists who feel safety in numbers.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never said anything about atheists following anyone. I spoke of those high profile personalities as examples of atheists, not people anyone would necessarily base their opinion of atheists upon, if they have any common sense at least.[/
QUOTE]
No atheist has to base the fact they don't believe in God on anything whatsoever.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The above is the mindset of someone who hasn't read a post properly and had definitely misunderstood what was being said..

The above is the mindset of someone who resorts to insults when they have no good arguments for their cause.

Clearly it does matter, or Dicky wouldn't have been uninvited for his latest twitter titsup. I never said any atheist was likely to become a theist because of it, but there are many theists who will never hear the benefits of atheism if these representatives of atheism keep getting themselves "no-platformed" and unable to speak, silenced and banned from public spaces and social media.

There are no representatives of atheism. Again I see theists can't cope with that idea.

I own an applewatch · 30-01-2016 6:09am

All feminists are cnuts.

One eyed Jack · 30-01-2016 6:44am

colossus-x wrote: »

There is no 'them'. Atheists are not a demographic. We are not a 'group'. I pass an atheist on the street but I've no connection with them whatsoever. We are not weak minded like theists who feel safety in numbers.

"We are not a group"...

Would you like to take another stab at that?

No atheist has to base the fact they don't believe in God on anything whatsoever.

I've never tried to argue otherwise. In fact when I've previously pointed out that the atheist position requires no thought whatsoever, people who identify as atheist appeared to take offence to that assertion.

The above is the mindset of someone who resorts to insults when they have no good arguments for their cause.

If that were true, the logical conclusion to be drawn from your earlier "Dawkins", was because it is you who has no good argument for your cause. I certainly haven't stooped to insulting you?

There are no representatives of atheism. Again I see theists can't cope with that idea.

No good argument for your cause then?

For what it's worth - if someone identifies themselves as atheist, then they are, by association, representative of atheism.

mansize · 30-01-2016 6:50am

The 'spastics' comment in the video was disgusting.

Excellent sattire it wasn't

Internet Ham · 30-01-2016 7:49am

mansize wrote: »

The 'spastics' comment in the video was disgusting.

Excellent sattire it wasn't

Why exactly was it disgusting? I personally found nothing disagreeable with any of it. That being said, I find words less offensive than banal opinion. That is just me.

Are we getting to the stage where a laugh track has to be added to reinforce the idea that this is clearly satire?

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-01-2016 8:26am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's a matter of opinion, solely focused on the content of the video, which Dawkins didn't even realise who was being satirised. In my opinion, the video was neither funny, nor effective satire.

Clearly what is "funny" is a matter of opinion in many cases. I would never disagree with that. There probably, like in art, are some objective strong trends in the formula for making humor, but it is largely subjective too.

However Nugent explained what he means by effective satire and I think using "opinion" to blanket dismiss that is less effective. As Nugent explained, the purpose of the video was to show, through satire, parallels between two groups (and we can extrapolate this to other groups too) in their methodologies of shutting down discourse and rebuttal.

And this is not only true, but is an ongoing issue in our society as everything from this creation of things like "safe spaces", to getting talks by people like Richard and Miriam stopped, to the creation of blasphemy laws, to people being silenced and sued for "offence", to people being killed or threatened with death for the "crimes" of writing books or drawing cartoons.... and so on..... is something worth calling attention to in ALL forms of discourse, including satire, and stopped. It is a war on free speech and the free dissemination of ideas.

As the Nugent article says.... people have rights, ideas do not. And ANY form of linguistic attack on those that pretend otherwise is useful and effective. Including this satire for which this thread was created.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"We are not a group"... Would you like to take another stab at that?

No reason he should. I expect the vast majority of people know what he means by it. It would just be yet another example of your contrived linguistic pedantry were you to try to score some kind of points by pedantically pointing out that "we" suggests a "group" so saying "We (a group) are not a group" is self contradictory.

Yet those of us not using pedantry to negate what a person is saying understand just as well as you what the poster means, but only differ in that we are not using that pedantry to pretend otherwise. Because clearly what the poster means is that the set "atheist" has few, if any, ubiquitous characteristics or traits within it. And any characteristic or trait you extrapolate for a person based on the term "atheist" is pure guess work.

This differs from a set like "Catholic" for example where many traits you might extrapolate from the term could (pedantically again) still be described as guess work, but a very educated guess. If you tell me someone, like you for example, is a "Catholic" I would not be being egregious to extrapolate that the person to whom that label applies believes there is a god, believes in magic crackers, believes a god impregnated a virgin to give birth to itself, or believes that at least one, if not several, human bodies dead for long periods of time came back to life in defiance of human biology.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've previously pointed out that the atheist position requires no thought whatsoever, people who identify as atheist appeared to take offence to that assertion.

Only because you contrive to misrepresent disagreement as "offence". I have seen you trot out that vacuous and unsubstantiated assertion before, yes, but the quantity of people "offended" by it were few, if any.

What people did was point out that you were making an unsubstantiated and false assertion. And you are/were. And they merely disagreed with you. But you are so invested in your narrative of "offence" at times, that you parse the responses of others falsely through that narrative yourself.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

For what it's worth - if someone identifies themselves as atheist, then they are, by association, representative of atheism.

Only in the sense that if I identify as being Irish then I am representative of people who are Irish. Which is not very representative at all. Because when people are saying they are not representative of the group they are saying they are not representative of majority of ubiquitous characteristics in that group. And the diversity within the set "irish" is so wide that you can extrapolate nearly nothing from one single example from that set.

And that is BEFORE you point out that context is important. Clearly with an application of your usual contrived linguistic pedantry you could point out cherry picked characteristics such as "having two legs" and say "Well see, you are representative of many common characteristics in the group you are representative of"..... but context has to inform the speaker and the speakee what types of characteristics and attributes we refer to when we say "not representative".

But alas alongside your ongoing MO of contrived and transparent linguistic pedantry, you have a similar ongoing contrived and transparent tendency to simply entirely ignore context when it serves your agenda of trying to points score by pretending not to understand what a person perfectly obviously means by their words. Who's credibility other than your own you think you erode in doing so however has always been less clear to me over time, as it is not at all clear who you think this MO is fooling other than, perhaps, yourself.

sponsoredwalk · 31-01-2016 9:42pm

'some, I assume, are good people'.

Akrasia · 02-02-2016 11:32am

The Irony in this issue is that NECSS, in deciding to silence a scientist for expressing 'divisive views' has acted in a way that is much more divisive than anything Dawkins has ever tweeted.

A Primal Nut · 03-02-2016 12:34am

The video isn't as rediculous as it first seems. You only need to look at Maryam Namazie. The Goldsmith University Atheist Society invited her to speak. She is an ex-muslim who speaks out against Islamic Extremism and the treatment of women and LGBT people especially in Islamic societies. The Islamic Society tried to stop her from speaking and when they failed they harassed her constantly during her speech (a video of this is available). Included in the group were senior members of the society known for making anti-woman and anti-gay slurs on social media (http://sludj.tumblr.com/post/134721546904/goldfemsoc-goldsmiths-feminist-society-stands).

Who did the LGBT and Feminist societies side with? The Islamic Society of course, and they condemned Namazie and said she should never have been allowed speak at the University as she stirs up hatred. They firmly nailed their colours to the mast. Namazie has more courage for fighting for Feminist/LGBT rights in her little finger than everyone in those LGBT/Feminist societies combined.

https://www.facebook.com/lgbtqgold/posts/635682619906781
http://goldfemsoc.tumblr.com/post/134396957048/goldsmiths-feminist-society-stands-in-solidarity
http://quillette.com/2015/12/06/the-shame-and-the-disgrace-of-the-pro-islamist-left/

Liberalism will tear itself apart over this. Fear of offending Muslims is always put ahead of every other liberal cause. It's the no.1 sacred cow for many liberals. It's really bizaree.

As much as people here hate generaling Atheists, Atheist liberal groups tend to be the most balanced when it comes to treating every anti-progressive group for what they are, regardless of who gets offended.

silverharp · 03-02-2016 9:53am

Thundef00t did a video about this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGTmwyKpz0o

MrPudding · 05-02-2016 1:05pm

silverharp wrote: »

Thundef00t did a video about this

OK, I need some help. I can't remember if I am supposed to like Thunderf00t or not... I like the video, and I like most of his work, but I am not sure if I am allowed to. What is the atheist rule on this? I am at work and the rule book is at home. I am "basic atheist" and not "atheist+" if that makes any difference.

MrP

robindch · 05-02-2016 1:26pm

MrPudding wrote: »

I can't remember if I am supposed to like Thunderf00t or not... I like the video, and I like most of his work, but I am not sure if I am allowed to.

Dades, Turtwig and myself decided a while ago that you're allowed to, but only for non-triggering videos of which the above isn't - repeat isn't - as it contains images of a privileged white male.

We'll be in touch with more opinions for you in due course.

MrPudding · 05-02-2016 1:48pm

robindch wrote: »

Dades, Turtwig and myself decided a while ago that you're allowed to, but only for non-triggering videos of which the above isn't - repeat isn't - as it contains images of a privileged white male.

We'll be in touch with more opinions for you in due course.

Thank you, that is a weight off.

MrP

Gbear · 05-02-2016 1:55pm

A Primal Nut wrote: »

The video isn't as rediculous as it first seems. You only need to look at Maryam Namazie. The Goldsmith University Atheist Society invited her to speak. She is an ex-muslim who speaks out against Islamic Extremism and the treatment of women and LGBT people especially in Islamic societies. The Islamic Society tried to stop her from speaking and when they failed they harassed her constantly during her speech (a video of this is available). Included in the group were senior members of the society known for making anti-woman and anti-gay slurs on social media (http://sludj.tumblr.com/post/134721546904/goldfemsoc-goldsmiths-feminist-society-stands).

Who did the LGBT and Feminist societies side with? The Islamic Society of course, and they condemned Namazie and said she should never have been allowed speak at the University as she stirs up hatred. They firmly nailed their colours to the mast. Namazie has more courage for fighting for Feminist/LGBT rights in her little finger than everyone in those LGBT/Feminist societies combined.

https://www.facebook.com/lgbtqgold/posts/635682619906781
http://goldfemsoc.tumblr.com/post/134396957048/goldsmiths-feminist-society-stands-in-solidarity
http://quillette.com/2015/12/06/the-shame-and-the-disgrace-of-the-pro-islamist-left/

Liberalism will tear itself apart over this. Fear of offending Muslims is always put ahead of every other liberal cause. It's the no.1 sacred cow for many liberals. It's really bizaree.

As much as people here hate generaling Atheists, Atheist liberal groups tend to be the most balanced when it comes to treating every anti-progressive group for what they are, regardless of who gets offended.

Fascism (with a small "f") isn't a religious impulse.

People find plenty of secular ways to impose themselves on others.

That's why we see such apparently bizarre alliances forming. Their love of fascism is a lot stronger and more fundamental than their specific beliefs.

People talk about the horsehoe or the bell-curve that bunches them together on opposite extremes, usually along right/left divids, but on the authoritarian/liberal axis they're all wayyyyy out there on the authoritarian side, right beside one another.

I reckon it's a personality thing as much as anything. If you're an insecure narcissist you're going to want to force everyone to believe what you do and any challenge will feel personal. Those kinds of people are going to be drawn to these ideas and they'll shape one another in each others image.

robindch · 05-02-2016 2:31pm

MrPudding wrote: »

Thank you, that is a weight off.

Sizist! :mad:

Bristolscale7 · 05-02-2016 2:38pm

Thunderfoot seems like he desperately needs to get laid.

Links234 · 05-02-2016 3:17pm

MrPudding wrote: »

OK, I need some help. I can't remember if I am supposed to like Thunderf00t or not...

He's someone I used to really like until he stopped debunking creationists and joined up with goobergate, so he's in that gibbering pile of crazy. It's always sad when outspoken atheists fall into a different ballpit of nutiness, which speaking of, Dawkins is under more fire for retweeting neo-nazi propaganda. This is pretty much emblematic of Dawkins lately, he seems to be perfectly happy to be a useful idiot for disseminating far-right bunk uncritically, which is where the video he retweeted falls. It posits that feminists were silent about the Cologne attacks, and not only refuse to condemn then, but say it's ok for Muslim men to sexually assault and rape women, which is utter nonsense. It's also demonstrably false, considering there were protests by feminist groups, and many articles about it. Many German feminists are speaking out about Cologne, condemning what took place, but also pointing out the hypocrisy of only focusing on the issue when Muslims are to blame, and pointing out that there are far more gropings, sexual assaults and rapes at Oktoberfest every year, yet doesn't recieve anywhere near the amount of attention as the attacks in Cologne recieved.

So is it any wonder Dawkins is finding himself disinvited from a skeptics event with the kind of utter bunk he's been coming out with lately? It's also really rather worrying how uncritical and unskeptical a lot of so-called skeptics are with regards to some of the serious serious far-right extrisism that's siddling up alongside them. It's no coincidence that Richard unknowingly (and I'll certainly give him the benefit of doubt on that, I don't believe he's that far gone to have purposely done it) retweeted neo-nazi propaganda, the far-right has been donning the mask of atheism and skepticism when it suits them, and it's really been suiting them a lot lately.

silverharp · 05-02-2016 3:18pm

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Thunderfoot seems like he desperately needs to get laid.

In the interest of science, what are the signs?

nozzferrahhtoo · 05-02-2016 3:30pm

I guess that I can just be glad that, unlike many theists, I am neither part of a personality cult, nor do I look at the world in terms of personalities.

Rather I look at the world in terms of evaluating what is being said by a person at any given time. Solely on the merits of what is being said and how it is being substantiated. I am therefore free of worry about anything else the person might have said or done in the past, no matter how good, or how awful.

So I do not share the disappointment of people like Links above when someone like Dawkins or Thunderfoot, who was perfectly reasonable in one field (such as atheism), suddenly starts spouting complete nonsense in other fields. And if they produce a good video (if) making good points, I do not have to concern myself with whether I am supposed to like them or not.

Alas the world, and many theists in it, does operate around personality cults. And when people like Dawkins say something they can not rebut, they can just shift the entire conversation away with something like "Oh Dawkins, you mean the guy who thinks mild pedophilia is ok?" or "Oh you are quoting Obama are you, well he is a liberal and the problem with liberals is......"

It gives people an "out". A cop out. And it is as amazing, as it is depressing, how many of them jump at the chance to take it.

One eyed Jack · 05-02-2016 3:59pm

Links234 wrote: »

It's no coincidence that Richard unknowingly (and I'll certainly give him the benefit of doubt on that, I don't believe he's that far gone to have purposely done it) retweeted neo-nazi propaganda, the far-right has been donning the mask of atheism and skepticism when it suits them, and it's really been suiting them a lot lately.

I think it's more the case that atheists are becoming far more right-wing, rather than the other way round. The reason it's suiting them a lot is not because they're atheist, but simply because they're utter nut-job conspiracy theorists who are skeptical to a fault - finding conspiracies where there are none, promoting messages of hatred and division, and Richard unfortunately falls between two stools as a member of the "old left", whom I would now consider conservative, as opposed to the "new left", who are that much more progressive.

Atheists who are far-right are a response to how the left has been moving for years - more towards feminism, and atheists who are by far a class of young heterosexual white men are becoming more bitter that women are becoming more equal to them in society, so they're swinging over to the extreme right. Dawkins doesn't know what the hell is going on any more I'd say :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo · 05-02-2016 4:03pm

^ Any evidence or figures for any of that, assuming your ignoring of my posts on this thread is not ongoing that is?

That Atheists are becoming more right wing for example?

Or that they are conspiracy theorists?

Or that they are promoting messages of hatred and division?

Or that atheists are bitter that women are achieving equality?

Because nothing I have experienced, directly or vicariously, supports any of those comments at any level.

Bristolscale7 · 05-02-2016 4:04pm

Atheists are a heterogeneous group.

silverharp · 05-02-2016 4:49pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think it's more the case that atheists are becoming far more right-wing, rather than the other way round. The reason it's suiting them a lot is not because they're atheist, but simply because they're utter nut-job conspiracy theorists who are skeptical to a fault - finding conspiracies where there are none, promoting messages of hatred and division, and Richard unfortunately falls between two stools as a member of the "old left", whom I would now consider conservative, as opposed to the "new left", who are that much more progressive.

Atheists who are far-right are a response to how the left has been moving for years - more towards feminism, and atheists who are by far a class of young heterosexual white men are becoming more bitter that women are becoming more equal to them in society, so they're swinging over to the extreme right. Dawkins doesn't know what the hell is going on any more I'd say :pac:

There are always going to be far right supporters . its centre left people that are more shocked by the regressives. Phil mason aka thunderf00t is a physics researcher in a university I'd guess he wouldn't even have been a fan of someone like Thatcher. Most people attacking feminists are doing it from the cenre . you have to go out your way to find the far right guys which seem to attract the " holohoax" gang.
Most of the anti feminists aren't prescriptively wanting a replacement its just the skeptic playing wackamole with bad ideas. It is funny though that the feminists have taken over the puritan job that the religious right had in the 80's in the US. Who'd have thunk it

recedite · 05-02-2016 5:26pm

Is it worth pointing out again that Dawkins is not "anti -feminist"?
He says in the original tweet that the satire is not against the "vast majority of feminists, among whom I count myself."

He does seem to be against the creeping Islamicisation that we see in Europe, and around the world, but then so is Sam Harris, and so was Christopher Hitchins. You don't have to be white, male and atheist to be labelled as an "islamophobic" but it sure helps.

What all these people have in common is their ability to see issues with an insightful and clear vision, to use reason. And they have a willingness to call out BS which is often lacking in their christian counterparts; a lack of hypocrisy.
Their alleged "right wing" sympathies is not in fact a common denominator.

yellowlabrador · 05-02-2016 5:29pm

silverharp wrote: »

There are always going to be far right supporters . its centre left people that are more shocked by the regressives. Phil mason aka thunderf00t is a physics researcher in a university I'd guess he wouldn't even have been a fan of someone like Thatcher. Most people attacking feminists are doing it from the cenre . you have to go out your way to find the far right guys which seem to attract the " holohoax" gang.
Most of the anti feminists aren't prescriptively wanting a replacement its just the skeptic playing wackamole with bad ideas. It is funny though that the feminists have taken over the puritan job that the religious right had in the 80's in the US. Who'd have thunk it

I think you'll find that a lot of 3rd wave feminist ideas stem from the 80's.
I'm a female engineer and at the time, I considered myself a feminist, daughter of a feminist as my mother also had a career. I went to a few meetings in London, as a group of feminists wanted to set up a Women's Centre. I was soon disillusioned. The big argument was what to do with the young sons of the women who would attend said centre. Some argued that any boy over 5 should be unwelcome, others any boy over 1 m tall. These women were the nuttiest bunch of fruitloops you could meet. They've been underground for years but now they are coming after anything male. You have to meet some of these radicals before you realise how serious and hateful they are . If people like thunderfoot, with a large young following don't speak up, who will. Long live meritocracy.

Bristolscale7 · 05-02-2016 5:32pm

"I'm not anti-feminist...I'm just going to retweet this misogynistic video." What a load of ****e. Dawkins needs to be a little more self-reflective about the invisible knapsack of privilege he was born with if he wants to be a public intellectual. Otherwise he needs to stick to evolutionary biology.

Gbear · 05-02-2016 5:43pm

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

"I'm not anti-feminist...I'm just going to retweet this misogynistic video." What a load of ****e. Dawkins needs to be a little more self-reflective about the invisible knapsack of privilege he was born with if he wants to be a public intellectual. Otherwise he needs to stick to evolutionary biology.

There is literally nothing misogynistic in the video at all, is there?

It is so devoid of musical quality or sense of humour that it utterly fails to score an open goal of satirical comedy, but if you think it's misogynistic then you appear to be falling into the same trap of slandering people with buzzwords as usually happens with decrying "Islamophobia" or calling people who disagree with religious people stuffing their bull**** down everyone's throat as "militant atheists".

silverharp · 05-02-2016 5:49pm

yellowlabrador wrote: »

I think you'll find that a lot of 3rd wave feminist ideas stem from the 80's.
I'm a female engineer and at the time, I considered myself a feminist, daughter of a feminist as my mother also had a career. I went to a few meetings in London, as a group of feminists wanted to set up a Women's Centre. I was soon disillusioned. The big argument was what to do with the young sons of the women who would attend said centre. Some argued that any boy over 5 should be unwelcome, others any boy over 1 m tall. These women were the nuttiest bunch of fruitloops you could meet. They've been underground for years but now they are coming after anything male. You have to meet some of these radicals before you realise how serious and hateful they are . If people like thunderfoot, with a large young following don't speak up, who will. Long live meritocracy.

I don't like to use the argument that I'm a parent , but yeah anyone with kids will realise that you want all your kids treated fairly and not one advanced at the expense of the other. Whereas these cookies seem to have revenge in mind. At the end of the day competition is good and it makes everybody up their game.

One eyed Jack · 05-02-2016 5:52pm

silverharp wrote: »

It is funny though that the feminists have taken over the puritan job that the religious right had in the 80's in the US. Who'd have thunk it

Anyone who knows their history wouldn't just have thought it, but they will have seen it coming. As Bristolscale points out above - atheists are a heterogeneous group. By that same token - so are feminists. Just look at how splintered they are over a number of social issues. Since you mention puritanism, we'll take prostitution - feminists have traditionally been against the idea, but now more and more "the old guard" so to speak, are being accused of... "whorephobia", and if you think they're only a small group, they're powerful enough to have the backing of Amnesty International behind them!!

With regard to puritanism though, feminists can't be blamed for the "red pill" movement, or the "no fap" movement, or the MGTOW movement. Those are entirely men competing for puritan dominance amongst themselves. It's simply a case of history repeating itself.

nozzferrahhtoo · 05-02-2016 6:01pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As Bristolscale points out above - atheists are not a heterogeneous group.

Funny I thought he said they WERE a heterogeneous group. I am also pretty sure they actually ARE a heterogeneous group too. Can you please explain how they are not? Or will you be ignoring this post too in your dodge campaign since it, like the last one, contains questions you simply have no answer to?

One eyed Jack · 05-02-2016 6:18pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Funny I thought he said they WERE a heterogeneous group. I am also pretty sure they actually ARE a heterogeneous group too. Can you please explain how they are not?

Cheers for pointing that out. I've edited the post to clarify. I'm absolutely certain atheists are a heterogeneous group. Apologies for any confusion that may have caused.

Or will you be ignoring this post too in your dodge campaign since it, like the last one, contains questions you simply have no answer to?

Seeing as I haven't ignored this post, you may take it that I will pick and choose what questions and points I wish to pick up on or respond to. It's less of a dodge and more of a consideration that some posts just aren't worth responding to. That's something I'll make no apologies for.

silverharp · 05-02-2016 7:00pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Anyone who knows their history wouldn't just have thought it, but they will have seen it coming. As Bristolscale points out above - atheists are a heterogeneous group. By that same token - so are feminists. Just look at how splintered they are over a number of social issues. Since you mention puritanism, we'll take prostitution - feminists have traditionally been against the idea, but now more and more "the old guard" so to speak, are being accused of... "whorephobia", and if you think they're only a small group, they're powerful enough to have the backing of Amnesty International behind them!!

With regard to puritanism though, feminists can't be blamed for the "red pill" movement, or the "no fap" movement, or the MGTOW movement. Those are entirely men competing for puritan dominance amongst themselves. It's simply a case of history repeating itself.

its more the scale of it, in the past you could go though college and never hear it mentioned,now with social media it or possibly the growth in soft college courses seems it seems to be everywhere. As for "redpill" , its a term I only heard a few months back, what are they? a couple of thousand guys who have near zero real world presence.
Its interesting to try see where social trends are going. It was always going to be clear that the effects of 2nd wave feminism would be less marriage, which isnt a bad thing, lets face it not everyone is cut out for it. it seems to be more extreme in Japan where a lot of young Japanese people are essentially celibate but I dont see that happening here or in the west.

Bristolscale7 · 05-02-2016 8:21pm

A problem with some of these high profile atheists--particularly the scientists--is that they are just not that well read. This is why they sound like idiots when they talk about gender or just about anything else not related to polemics and their own background. Hitchens was a intellectual powerhouse and the likes of Dawkins and this youtube crowd pale in comparison.

recedite · 05-02-2016 11:04pm

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

A problem with some of these high profile atheists--particularly the scientists--is that they are just not that well read.

Are we talking about the same R. Dawkins,FRS FRSL ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and writer, emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008 ?
And you are.....? :pac:

Meanwhile, https://twitter.com/nadine_feiler/status/694126315545427968

The tweet that got Dawkins banned from NECSS

Comments