The tweet that got Dawkins banned from NECSS

One eyed Jack

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

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

colossus-x

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

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

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

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

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

All feminists are cnuts.

One eyed Jack

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

The 'spastics' comment in the video was disgusting.

Excellent sattire it wasn't

Internet Ham

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

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

'some, I assume, are good people'.

Akrasia

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

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

Thundef00t did a video about this

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

MrPudding

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

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

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

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

MrPudding wrote: »

Thank you, that is a weight off.

Sizist! :mad:

Bristolscale7

Thunderfoot seems like he desperately needs to get laid.

Links234

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

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Thunderfoot seems like he desperately needs to get laid.

In the interest of science, what are the signs?

nozzferrahhtoo

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

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

^ 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

Atheists are a heterogeneous group.

silverharp

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

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.