The tweet that got Dawkins banned from NECSS

One eyed Jack

recedite wrote: »

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:

His target audience.

That is all he is after all - a science populariser and critic of religion.

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

See that's why Richard can call himself a feminist - because he has his own individual ideas of what feminism means for him. Anyone can claim a label for themselves these days and apply any meaning they like to it, and if you raise an skeptic eyebrow, well, you'll be the person who will be told in no uncertain terms that you're attacking their "identity".

I really hope Richard is aiming for satire this time with his use of the word "privilege". It's the language of identity politics that prevents a lot of people from taking them seriously.

Bristolscale7

recedite wrote: »

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:

He's no Bertrand Russell, Sagan, or Bill Nye for that matter.

Hotblack Desiato

Links234 wrote: »

Dawkins is under more fire for retweeting neo-nazi propaganda.

Why are you sensationalising this and making it sound deliberate? The article you linked to explains what happened and Dawkins' reaction when this QR code was pointed out to him, no justification for tabloid style "DAWKINS IN NAZI SHOCKER" outrage whatsoever, but RD's many detractors have never, ever let facts get in the way of a good rant.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

atheists who are by far a class of young heterosexual white men

LOL

are becoming more bitter that women are becoming more equal to them in society

LOL

I won't even bother asking where you pulled this stuff out of, because you won't answer, but I've a very good idea...

jackofalltrades

Links234 wrote: »

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.

I hear QR codes are responsible for much of the rise of the far-right.

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.

I'd love to see some proof of the above.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's less of a dodge and more of a consideration that some posts just aren't worth responding to.

Nice cop out narrative that simply gets you out of your dodge of over three posts now, with posts relevant to the thread and topic. You made several claims directly on this thread. I asked you what back up you have for any of them.

You clearly have none to offer. Can we consider them retracted so? Since I can find no evidence for them, and seemingly nor can you. You apparently simply made the whole lot up. Again.

Dodging substantiating your claims with "Oh it was not worth responding to" is pretty damn weak.

stunmer

Has anyone come up with any valid arguments against the tweet by Dawkins?

robindch

stunmer wrote: »

Has anyone come up with any valid arguments against the tweet by Dawkins?

Not that I've seen. Lots of invective - yes, but a solid, well-argued, evidence-framed deconstruction based clearly upon what he wrote, rather than what some people think he wrote or would perhaps prefer had he written - nope.

pH

stunmer wrote: »

Has anyone come up with any valid arguments against the tweet by Dawkins?

I can see where they're coming from - the problem is solely how you view those caricatured and who you think is in the right.

Firstly imagine 2 rich white politicians being mocked like this with a funny song, and made to look ridiculous - hysterically funny we'd all agree - and millions who watched things like spitting image would agree.

Then example, imagine a song featuring a "stereotypical" Jew and say a black person being mocked - most of us would find that distasteful. In that we somehow see them as victims, and it's in poor taste to mock them. As the regressives have it it's "punching down".

But to someone who say believes that Jews are somehow behind a global Jewish banking conspiracy it very much would be funny political satire and very much "punching up" (which is why the terms punching X are mindlessly silly and not useful in determining who it's all right to harass and bully on the internet)

So if you view Islamisists as poor underprivileged brown people repressed for centuries by the white man and now persecuted by a Jewish state and the USA then you see it one way, on the other hand if you view Islamisists as the power behind a 1.7 million person global movement, which is in many ways totalitarian, prejudiced, intolerant, homophobic, misogynistic and power hungry then you see it another way.

The "Feminist" angle is a little harder to grasp, but I guess those who don't like the video or find it funny see feminists as fragile and not equal to men, which granted does give them the victim points they desperately crave - but it's a profoundly sexist and anti-woman position of theirs dressed up in "feminism".

stunmer

pH wrote: »

So if you view Islamisists as poor underprivileged brown people repressed for centuries by the white man and now persecuted by a Jewish state and the USA then you see it one way, on the other hand if you view Islamisists as the power behind a 1.7 million person global movement, which is in many ways totalitarian, prejudiced, intolerant, homophobic, misogynistic and power hungry then you see it another way.

I think many people get offended because they don't understand the word Islamist. They think an Islamist is to Islam as a Christian is to Christianity.

I was very surprised when googling an exact definition that there is a lot of ambiguity on this.

I use Maajid Nawaz's definition.

He defines Islamism as "the desire to impose any interpretation of Islam over society by law” (source). This is often referred to as political Islam. An Islamist is someone who practices Islamism. The video is using this definition.
Other good definitions here

An Islamist is not necessarily violent but most (all?) Islamic terrorism is done by Islamists. Islamists tend to little or no respect for many rights which are common in the "West" such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality between men and women, rights of homosexuals.

Islamism is almost the exact opposite to secularism. Muslims can be secular, but Islamists cannot be secular by definition.

Using the above definition I don't think it can be seen as "punching down" when referring to Islamists. Islamists want to change the laws to affect me and you and not just people who practice their faith.

Regarding feminists, Dawkins did mention in his tweet that the video described a minority of feminists who are pernicious. Therefore he was certainly not tarring all feminists (of which he considers himself one) with the same brush as some people have assumed.

Bristolscale7

stunmer wrote: »

Regarding feminists, Dawkins did mention in his tweet that the video described a minority of feminists who are pernicious. Therefore he was certainly not tarring all feminists (of which he considers himself one) with the same brush as some people have assumed.

Nevertheless, that is exactly what the video did.

robindch

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Nevertheless, that is exactly what the video did.

Did it? As I recall, the song said "I am a feminist", specifically referring (in the view of the video-maker) to that foul-mouthed woman who showed up later on, and in Dawkins' view at the time he posted it, of a certain subgroup of individuals who self-describe as "feminist" and whose tactics are very similar to those of islamic fundamentalists.

I don't recall that the video said that "all people who self-describe as feminists support fanatical islam or are pernicious or are dreadful people (etc, etc)".

stunmer

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Nevertheless, that is exactly what the video did.

I don't think you understand satire.

Exaggeration is often used in satire.

Satire definition (link):

The use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues:

When you watch a film where the Irish person is portrayed a drunk, do you automatically accuse the film makers of painting all Irish people as drunks?

robindch

John Cleese makes a few pertinent points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAK0KXEpF8U

John Cleese wrote:

I'm offended every day. For example, the British newspapers every day offend me with their laziness, their nastiness and they're in accuracy, but I'm not going to expect someone to stop that happening I just simply speak out about it. Sometimes when people are offended they want - you can just come in and say right stop that to whoever it is offending them. And, of course, as a former chairman of the BBC one said, "There are some people who I wish to offend." And I think there's truth in that too. So the idea that you have to be protected from any kind of uncomfortable emotion is what I absolutely do not subscribed to. And a fellow who I helped write two books about psychology and psychiatry was a renowned psychiatrist called Robert Skinner said something very interesting to me. He said, "If people can't control their own emotions then they have to start trying to control other people's behavior." And when you're around super sensitive people you cannot relax and be spontaneous because you have no idea what's going to upset them next. And that's why I've been warned recently don't to go to most university campuses because the political correctness has been taken from being a good idea, which is let's not be mean in particular to people who are not able to look after themselves very well, that's a good idea, to the point where any kind of criticism or any individual or group could be labeled cruel.

And the whole point about humor, the whole point about comedy, and believe you me I thought about this, is that all comedy is critical. Even if you make a very inclusive joke like how would you make God laugh? Answer: tell him your plans. Now that's about the human condition; it's not excluding anyone. Saying we all have all these plans, which probably won't come and isn't it funny how we still believe they're going to happen. So that's a very inclusive joke. It's still critical. All humor is critical. If you start to say we mustn't, we mustn't criticize or offend them then humor is gone. With humor goes a sense of proportion. And then as far as I'm concerned you're living in 1984.

pH

https://soundcloud.com/user-733970241

In Richard's announcement about his stroke he mentions the stress this event caused him, and also says the organisers had reinvited him.

recedite

pH wrote: »

https://soundcloud.com/user-733970241

He says he's thinking about joining the Amish. I was afraid something like this would happen after the stroke.

yellowlabrador

No it's Peter tatchell that is no platformed...... by a LGTB student representative, you couldn't make it up.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/13/peter-tatchell-snubbed-students-free-speech-veteran-gay-rights-activist?CMP=twt_gu

robindch

The NECSS deplatforms its own deplatforming.

Both sides say that this decision was made before Dawkins suffered his stroke:

http://necss.org/2016/02/14/statement-from-the-executive-committee/

NECSS wrote:

We wish to apologize to Professor Dawkins for our handling of his disinvitation to NECSS 2016. Our actions were not professional, and we should have contacted him directly to express our concerns before acting unilaterally. We have sent Professor Dawkins a private communication expressing this as well. This apology also extends to all NECSS speakers, our attendees, and to the broader skeptical movement.

We wish to use this incident as an opportunity to have a frank and open discussion of the deeper issues implicated here, which are causing conflict both within the skeptical community and within society as a whole. NECSS 2016 will therefore feature a panel discussion addressing these topics. There is room for a range of reasonable opinions on these issues and our conversation will reflect that diversity. We have asked Professor Dawkins to participate in this discussion at NECSS 2016 in addition to his prior scheduled talk, and we hope he will accept our invitation.

This statement and our discussions with Professor Dawkins were initiated prior to learning of his recent illness. All of NECSS wishes Professor Dawkins a speedy and full recovery.

nozzferrahhtoo

For those interested I see Sam Harris has also weighed in with his opinion of the affair.

stunmer

robindch wrote: »

The NECSS deplatforms its own deplatforming.

Both sides say that this decision was made before Dawkins suffered his stroke:

http://necss.org/2016/02/14/statement-from-the-executive-committee/

Wrong decision was made in the first place. Re-evaluated their position and re-invited him together with a public apology. It takes courage to admit you made a mistake.

In addition to this, it is really positive that these issues (I presume de-platforming) will be featured and discussed at the conference.

Gbear

stunmer wrote: »

Wrong decision was made in the first place. Re-evaluated their position and re-invited him together with a public apology. It takes courage to admit you made a mistake.

In addition to this, it is really positive that these issues (I presume de-platforming) will be featured and discussed at the conference.

If they can actually have a proper conversation about this the whole mess will have been worth it.

Well... not the stroke. That was unfortunate.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

.... or would perhaps prefer had he written - nope.

Yes this is perhaps the key the whole PC state of affairs in which we live.
Unfortunately divisive people can also play with it - so its tricky to decipher on occasion. In this instance however Dawkins (re)tweet was pretty harmless. The accompanying animation however was idiotic. His only foul was in referencing it - it was thoroughly distasteful.

But that NECSS would uninvite him is great signaler of how agendas are hijacked - either by unintelligible dimwits or divisive parties - its great to see they changed their decision but I'd love to know how the initial unilateral decision got made and presented by seemingly a not too unenlightened organisation. It doesnt appear to me that offense was had but rather a certain divisiveness was inserted either that or they sucummed to interweb outrage in which case - dimwits indeed.