The tweet that got Dawkins banned from NECSS

pH

So Richard Dawkins just got himself "uninvited" from NECSS 2016
https://archive.is/UPRBU

For this tweet:
https://tweetsave.com/richarddawkins/status/692033018970705920

And here's the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08

It's a SyeTenAtheist video but posted on Sargon's YT channel, one of the funniest things I have seen in a while

The usual crowd screamed "harassment" and "abuse"

Shrap

That is actually hilarious.....and profoundly disturbing at the same time. Oh boy, I'd say the outrage could have been measured on the Richter Scale!


*gets shed-load of popcorn for the fallout of this one*

Michael OBrien

"We believe strongly in freedom of speech and freedom to express unpopular, and even offensive, views. However, unnecessarily divisive, counterproductive, and even hateful speech runs contrary to our mission and the environment we wish to foster at NECSS. The sentiments expressed in the video do not represent the values of NECSS or its sponsoring organizations."

Yeah, because a retweet with a disclaimer he does not think most feminists are like that and he is a feminist himself, but a minority of them can be like what we see in the video, goes beyond free speech. Disgraceful decision. I hope people who planned on attending pull out, including some of the speakers in protest.

As far as the video goes, I did not find it very funny but it makes some interesting points. Sye Ten Atheist videos are a bit hit and miss at times.

Shrap

Michael OBrien wrote: »

As far as the video goes, I did not find it very funny but it makes some interesting points. Sye Ten Atheist videos are a bit hit and miss at times.

Totally agree with you, and just to clarify, I only found it funny because of how intensively and shockingly offensive it is!

nozzferrahhtoo

I saw PZ Myers rush to misrepresent this one yesterday too. I have to admit I am baffled. Someone, not Richard Dawkins, made a video generalizing Muslims and Feminists.... Dawkins re-tweeted it saying that it does NOT represent the VAST majority of feminists..... and people from PZ to NECSS are attacking him for it?

So quoting or referencing something you disagree with.... and pointing out you disagree with it.... NOW means you can be attacked vicariously for the position you rebutted rather than for your rebuttal of that position?

The world of discourse really is changing in ways I never would have predicted.

magicbastarder

by gum, that video is appallingly ****e.

Shrap

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Dawkins re-tweeted it saying that it does NOT represent the VAST majority of feminists..... and people from PZ to NECSS are attacking him for it?

I imagine it was the implication that it does represent the minority of pernicious feminists that did it. Even the implication that a minority of feminists are pernicious wouldn't have gone over well in a climate where people are too afraid or stupid to call out the extreme feminist discourse as utterly hypocritical.

Shrap

magicbastarder wrote: »

by gum, that video is appallingly ****e.

Hmm. Am I the only one who found it funny (in a blackly humorous and sick kind of way)?

robindch

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

people from PZ to NECSS are attacking him for it?

In all fairness, PZ Myers does not have a history of delivering carefully-considered, surgical wordstrikes.

Bristolscale7

Fairly stupid of him to tweet that video.

Shrap

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Fairly stupid of him to tweet that video.

This may shed some light on the boo-boo he made actually. Here's a tweet of his from last night:

Having learned that the woman in the joke song is a real person who has been disgracefully threatened with violence, I'm deleting my tweets.

yellowlabrador

I liked that video.
Some of the strident, misandrist feminists need to wake up. They also need to connect with ordinary women and find out what life is all about. Just look at the advice given to women after the Koln rape and pillage. They don't like men but I also think they don't like ordinary women.

MrPudding

Shrap wrote: »

Hmm. Am I the only one who found it funny (in a blackly humorous and sick kind of way)?

No.

MrP

Shrap

yellowlabrador wrote: »

They don't like men but I also think they don't like ordinary women.

I don't like anyone who tries to make a "them" and "us" out of any issue.

nozzferrahhtoo

Shrap wrote: »

I imagine it was the implication that it does represent the minority of pernicious feminists that did it. Even the implication that a minority of feminists are pernicious wouldn't have gone over well in a climate where people are too afraid or stupid to call out the extreme feminist discourse as utterly hypocritical.

Perhaps. I think every movement, even atheism, has its unsavory and pernicious elements. PZ for example is slowly becoming a genuine embarrassment I fear. And there are atheists who literally HATE the religious rather than religion.

I think every movement has to recognize, identify, oppose and marginalize those pernicious elements within them. If you want to be part of any movement, this is essentially part of the admin work you should expect. And as with so many things in life the first step to doing that, is admitting the problem is there.

If one finds oneself getting haughty and uppity when someone else points out the existence of these elements, then one has a problem that is deserving of some quite introspection. Because they ARE there, and they SHOULD be pointed out. Internally and externally.

Shrap wrote: »

Hmm. Am I the only one who found it funny (in a blackly humorous and sick kind of way)?

Nah I did too, albeit only mildly. Caricaturing extreme stereotypes while knowing that is your intent, can by very humorous when done right as a comic genre. And that is what this video APPEARS to be doing (I can not say as I do not know the channel or what they usually produce).

But this one and it's contents were just a little TOO easy. Long hanging fruit and all that. It does not scream effort or inventiveness or creativity to me.

Bristolscale7

double post!

Bristolscale7

The preoccupation with feminism is not helpful. When Dawkins and a few others are continually chastising feminists because they won't denounce Islam it reminds me of the early Christians screaming at Jews for not recognizing Jesus as their messiah. Certainly all feminists should recognize the inherent misogeny in Islam, but if they don't identify this as a strategic priority then whatever.

magicbastarder

Shrap wrote: »

Hmm. Am I the only one who found it funny (in a blackly humorous and sick kind of way)?

i just found it obvious and banal.

magicbastarder

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

The preoccupation with feminism is not helpful.

yeah, there's a certain amount of 'if you're not with us, you're against us, and if you're against us, you're all the same'.

Bristolscale7

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, there's a certain amount of 'if you're not with us, you're against us, and if you're against us, you're all the same'.

There are much more interesting conversations to be had with feminists. For example, how does gender as a category relate to race and class in terms of advantage/disadvantage.

stunmer

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Someone, not Richard Dawkins, made a video generalizing Muslims Islamists and Feminists....

Sorry to be pernickety but the above correction is necessary.

GLaDOS

That video is truely painful to watch

One eyed Jack

pH wrote: »

So Richard Dawkins just got himself "uninvited" from NECSS 2016

Poor Dicky, promoting critical thinking through thoughtless tweeting.

I don't think it will do his public profile any harm. Being uninvited from public speaking events nowadays seems to garner more publicity and a greater audience than ever being invited to speak at these events in the first place.

orubiru

I have to say I don't like the video itself (too annoying) but if others think it's funny then fair enough. It's meant to entertain a specific audience. Nothing wrong with that.

Dawkins tweet is "Obviously doesn’t apply to vast majority of feminists, among whom I count myself. But the minority are pernicious."

He is saying that it doesn't apply to most feminists.
He is saying that he is a feminist himself.

Yet, he is being treated like some kind of heathen? What gives?

I am not really understanding how Feminist Atheists can look at a skeptic such as Dawkins and think that it's going to be possible to hold him up as their "champion" for criticizing Christians whilst also expecting him to avoid all criticism of Muslims and Feminists? He is obviously never going to do that.

I feel like we are expected to become a kind of "Selective Skeptic" where it's OK to be skeptical so long as you don't question certain protected ideologies?

What is the thing to take away from this? That there is now a "zero tolerance" policy on any and all criticism of Feminism?

Nodin

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Perhaps. I think every movement, even atheism, has its unsavory and pernicious elements. PZ for example is slowly becoming a genuine embarrassment I fear. And there are atheists who literally HATE the religious rather than religion..............

I hate to imagine the velocity when he speeds up.

orubiru

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Perhaps. I think every movement, even atheism, has its unsavory and pernicious elements. PZ for example is slowly becoming a genuine embarrassment I fear. And there are atheists who literally HATE the religious rather than religion.

I'd guess that a problem encountered by a lot of atheists is the old argument that "atheism is just another belief" or "atheism is a religion too".

The obvious rebuttal to that is to point out that "off" is not a television channel or that boiled water is not a type of tea.

Then you get characters like PZ Myers who come along and basically want to treat Atheism like a religion. Atheists need to behave a certain way and need to live up to a certain standard and support certain causes. They'd go as far as proposing that such a thing be labelled "Atheism+" because being a Humanist is not cool or something?

Bill could be an comic book reading, video game playing, rich white guy. Bill could be in charge of a huge corporation that pays women 77% of what it pays men. Bill could refuse to employ minorities and Bill will never install a wheelchair ramp at head office. Bill could hate "The Gays" and Bill could shout "nice ass" at the ladies from the window of his limo. Bill lacks belief in God. Is Bill an Atheist?

It seems like PZ and co would be genuinely interested in arguing that no, Bill is not a TRUE Atheist.

As far as I am concerned, "atheist" is a great description for your lack of belief in a God. As an identity, "Atheist" is not really a great one.

Instead of just accepting that someone who lacks belief is an atheist by definition, they want to build up this "Cult of Atheism" that comes with it's own tenets and code of conduct.

The very idea that someone can "give Atheism a bad name" is ridiculous.

All they are doing is playing into the hands of these Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and Josh Feuerstein types who will try to paint atheism as just another religion with it's own beliefs etc. Hey look over here, the Atheists can't even make up their minds about their own belief system.

One eyed Jack

orubiru wrote: »

I'd guess that a problem encountered by a lot of atheists is the old argument that "atheism is just another belief" or "atheism is a religion too".

...

Instead of just accepting that someone who lacks belief is an atheist by definition, they want to build up this "Cult of Atheism" that comes with it's own tenets and code of conduct.

The very idea that someone can "give Atheism a bad name" is ridiculous.

I'd never think of atheism as a religion, because of course that's just silly, but I think that's one of the problems faced by people who wish to promote atheism in society, is that there really is no common and cohesive movement. There really isn't anything to atheism only a lack of belief in a deity or deities (or an absence of belief if a person never had any belief in the first place, some people point to the fact that they aren't lacking anything, and that it is religious people who are lacking something that they have to fill the void with religion), and so I think that's why some people came up with the idea of Atheism+ (which I think is a load of nonsense btw). I've also seen campaigns that borrow from identity politics to try and promote atheism -


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_Campaign


I just think that Atheism, as a movement, is in crisis, because the more public it becomes, the more under attack it is, and I think some of the more prominent figures do themselves no favours on social media. For example I looked at a few of that Sargon guys YouTube videos, or TheAmazingAtheist, or thunderf00t, and tbh they come off like woeful knobs!

I know you're saying that the idea that someone can give atheism a bad name is ridiculous, but I do wonder - have Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers become like the Germaine Greer of Atheism?

Gone are the days of intellectual rigour and intelligent discourse, replaced by bitter bastards with a victim complex on social media. I really do wonder are they doing their own cause any favours.


Speaking of the absence of intellectual rigour, Sargon's commentary on the latest social media storm in a teacup exemplifies what I was referring to earlier -

He's in no position to question anyone else's lack of self-awareness.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd never think of atheism as a religion, because of course that's just silly, but I think that's one of the problems faced by people who wish to promote atheism in society, is that there really is no common and cohesive movement. There really isn't anything to atheism only a lack of belief in a deity or deities

I just think that Atheism, as a movement, is in crisis

Which is it?

Also, 'Atheism is in crisis' - LOL is all the response required to that.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Which is it?

I was allowing for the fact that some people who are atheist see Atheism as a movement, and some people who are atheist, do not, hence why I suggested there was a lack of cohesion that would see real progress being made within the atheist community (for those people who see themselves as part of a community of atheists).

Also, 'Atheism is in crisis' - LOL is all the response required to that.

LOL is often all the response that is required to a lot of discussions on here, but at least I make an effort to engage in the discussion. Perhaps the online echo-chamber effect allows you to forget, for a little while at least, that atheism is squarely in a minority position in the offline world.

Bristolscale7

You understand that an act of god would be required for atheism to be in crisis?

One eyed Jack

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

You understand that an act of god would be required for atheism to be in crisis?

When I say that Atheism is in crisis, I mean that as an ideology, it hasn't made much progress, it's still an ideology that is squarely in a minority, and it doesn't appear to be gaining any traction on a global scale to pose any serious threat to theism.