If only there had been a friendly conversation
So, this is the fruit of the merger between CFI and Dawkins’s foundation: Dawkins gets to use CFI to add a bit of respectability to his statement on NECSS.
That’s good for him, not so good for them. (Remember the good old days when he used to say that his debating William Lane Craig would look good on WLC’s resumé, not so good on his? This is that.) This ties his Twitter persona to CFI. It ties his ridiculous statement to CFI.
I woke up this morning to see a public announcement that my invitation to speak at NECSS 2016 had been withdrawn by the executive committee. I do not write this out of concern about my appearance or non-appearance at NECSS, but I wish there had been a friendly conversation before such unilateral action was taken. It is possible I could have allayed the committee members’ concerns, or, if not, at least we could have talked through their objections to my tweet. If our community is about anything, it is that reasoned discussion is the best way to work through disagreements.
Ok, our community is about [the idea that] reasoned discussion is the best way to work through disagreements. Ok, then why does Dawkins spend so much time having unreasoned discussions on Twitter? If he approves of reasoned discussion, why does he do so much angry blurting on Twitter? If he’s a fan of reasoned discussion, why does he so often find himself having to explain his latest angry blurts on Twitter? If he’s keen on reasoned discussion, why did he approvingly retweet that vulgar, mendacious, ugly video?
I might mention that, before receiving any word from NECSS, I had already deleted the tweet to which they objected. I did it purely because I was told that the video referenced a real woman, who had been threatened on earlier occasions because of YouTube videos in which she appeared to her disadvantage. I have no knowledge of the authenticity of the alleged death and rape threats. But to delete my tweet seemed the safest and most humane course of action. I have always condemned violence and threats of violence, for example in this tweet, which I also posted the day before the NECSS decision.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don’t EVER threaten anyone with violence. We should be free to use comedy/ridicule without fear it may inspire violence
There. That’s it right there. That’s it and he doesn’t even notice that that’s it. No, we shouldn’t be “free” (morally free) to use ridicule of individuals, especially when we’ve got all the power. No, even though we do and should have the legal right to ridicule individuals, doing so is still a morally shit thing to do. No, famous bestselling Richard Dawkins should not be using Twitter to ridicule random women he dislikes. No.
I hate it that Dawkins can now drag CFI down with him.
What a disingenuous load of crap! He wants NECSS to pat him on the back for a single tweet saying he doesn’t support the use of threats, but he’s been spending the last two days doubting whether women do get threatened and openly questioning if they’re making it up. Even when repeatedly provided with screen shots proving the threats are real!
Plus he repeatedly said variations on the “we have to be able to mock people” claim. He’s a bully, and proud of it.
“Do not speak to me of Rebecca Watson! She has offended me grievously!”
Exactly, Jacqueline.
About 100 percent of his tarnished and ugly reputation would have been salvaged if he had taken this very advice. Here, I have a few wishes …
I wish there had been a friendly conversation before he wrote Dear Muslima.
I wish there had been a friendly conversation before he decided to banish Rebecca Watson from all events at which he speaks.
I wish there had been a friendly conversation before he opened up his Twitter acount.
But, no, everyone needs to pay him the respect of a friendly conversation.
He is despicable.
Jacqueline,
Yes, when women report being threatened, Dawkins is hyperskepticism personified. When some anonymous Twitter account with a name indicative of an adolescent tells him that someone’s evidence can be disregarded because “he’s a known liar,” he’s all “oh, thank you for letting me know!”
Imagine that someone who hated Dawkins had taken over his Twitter account and wanted to embarrass him. Could they do a better job than he’s doing himself?
Screechy Monkey – but said Twitter account did not appear to be a FEMALE adolescent, therefore much more competent and capable of acting in a mature and adult manner than the thousands of adult females who have experienced and reported harassment. Dawkins, of course, would not say it like that since he believes himself to be a feminist (or at least wants other to believe it so they won’t think he’s a total jerk). He would, no doubt, have some sort of hyperskeptical reason why the multiple evidences shown him of harassment of females can be discarded, because, well, there is almost certainly someone who will tell him that these women are all “known liars”.
I think his response to Rebecca Watson says all anyone needs to know. I thought it was bad with the Dear Muslima, but that just looked like obliviousness in a wealthy white male. When I found he wouldn’t agree to speak at Reason Rally if she did, then it began to look like dyed-in-the-wool misogyny, and of one of the most virulent kinds – the kind that thinks it is okay to shut up any woman who says anything, no matter how mild, that challenges your worldview. Adolescent slymepitters must be loving it to have such a large megaphone as Dawkins to shout through.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don’t EVER threaten anyone with violence. We should be free to use comedy/ridicule without fear it may inspire violence
Not, ‘We should be free to criticize without being subjected to violence (or threats, harassment, etc.)’. No, that’s crazy talk. We should be able to criticize in any nasty way we like without it coming back to bite us on the ass when our known-to-be-overzealous followers descend like a school of piranhas on our target. It’s the ridiculer who should be ‘free’, not the ridiculed.
What a craven asswipe Dawkins is.
What gets me is that he’s tacitly admitting that some of the people who follow him have been harassing others – else what would be the point of this plea? – while he’s playing the “Nuffik to do with me guv’nor” card in other tweets.
Ugh.
The fact that his followers harass people was part of the conversation I had with him when we did the statement last year. That’s why it included the final paragraph.
“Harass. But don’t look like you’re trying to harass.”
“RAWRGWAWGGR?”
“I don’t know… harass casual.”
I don’t think it is always a shit thing to do. I do think it’s always shitty to do what Dawkins did here: approve and disseminate a video ridiculing a woman–on a very flimsy basis*–that is nothing but a strawman from beginning to end.
*”she did something I disapprove several years ago, when she was in college, therefore it’s within bounds for intellectually and morally dubious hordes to ridicule and harass her ever since, as long as PLEASE PLEASE no threats of violence. That makes us look bad.”
I think in the circs I spelled out: where the ridiculer has all the power (is a Dawkins-equivalent) and the ridiculee is just an individual, I think it probably is always a shit thing to do.
Oh my god, have you seen the latest? Now he’s doubting Binx has been threatened and calling her a “vile human being.”
http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/01/28/richard-dawkins-lindy-west-and-the-cartoon-video-of-great-hatefulness/
(See updates.)
Ophelia @ #12–Ah. Agreed.
“I think in the circs I spelled out: where the ridiculer has all the power (is a Dawkins-equivalent) and the ridiculee is just an individual, I think it probably is always a shit thing to do.”
I’m going to disagree with that. A lot of bloggers run variations of “I get email”– not just PZ, but God (Facebook), Jim Wright, and others. In those cases, the individual being ridiculed decided to verbally attack the blogger based on disagreement, and the blogger, annoyed yet also amused, decided to make their verbal attack public for mocking.
However, that’s not what Dawkins did, and he’s been a huge jerk. I’m just saying I believe there’s a pretty well established exception to your general rule, and that’s when the individual is the one with no manners and starts by making a fool of themselves.
Not saying I’m surprised but Michael Shermer has now joined in on the Twitter hate fest for Chanty specifically and “rabid feminists” in general.
Something is very wrong w/Dawkins’s mind. What a horrible human being he is.
Strange, it’s almost as if there is a polarization going on. Are there any scientists in the room who can explain? Like when cell nuclei divide, they separate into two distinct sets which soon part ways?
Well, how should I know anything about that? But maybe, perhaps, with luck, Dawk or PZ? Picking names at random here, of course, not being schooled in the art.
Lady M @ 13 – yes, I have. I looked at his tweets earlier today. It was a very unpleasant experience.
Just to be clear, is this (“The Northeast Conference on Science & Skepticism has withdrawn its invitation …) noplatforming?
Yes
freedom of speech
freedom to express unpopular views
freedom to express offensive views
but not
unnecessarily divisive speech
counterproductive speech
hateful speech
if it is
contrary to our mission (or its sponsoring organizations) and the environment we wish to foster.
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2016/prepare-to-be-surprised/
Maybe the “but not” criteria need to include “but not bullshit” in the sense discussed by Penny (“Your Call Is Important to Us: The Truth About Bullshit”) and Goldstein (“Plato at the Googleplex”), where, because the the purveyor has willingly deluded himself (narcissism), he is not mindful of his actions in the greater mattering map.
Fair enough, NECSS determines its platform. Is it effective to systematically noplatform so the divisive person is ‘sent to Coventry’ or to use social media for shaming (“Shame on You(Tube)”, Thursday December 03, 2015, http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas)?
Alternatively, if there is a mechanism for expulsion, would this be a more effective resolution? This could be the agenda, not for a friendly conversation but reasoned, confrontational discussion, set by the organization this person is disrupting, for a meeting where the person, without a Twitter or best selling author persona, is given opportunity to respond face to face to documented issues. Depending on how the organization is set up a simple vote by the Board could resolve the matter.
Generally speaking he may not have the option to agree to reform and simply based on past performance will be expelled (his agreement not necessary) so the real objectives will not be continually disrupted.
(I hope I will be forgiven use of “he” etc just for brevity rather than “s/he” etc in this post.)
Athywren:
Please. Please. Please. Don’t write such hilarious things while I’m drinking coffee, *Wipes coffee off screen*
I know this is serious, but I have to laugh at Dawkins adamantly Tweeting against threats of violence reminding me of the Monty Python sketch Dirty Fork when the Head Waiter says, “No Mungo, never kill a customer!”
When I saw the video a couple of days ago I had no idea that the straw feminist was based on a real person. I was, nevertheless, horrified by the way it portrayed such a horrible caricature of feminists. Dawkins said it was only a minority in his tweet but that clearly not the intention of the maker of the video. The video lampooned all feminists for daring to talk about misogyny and patriarchy and threw in a heavy dose of racism to go with it.
The fact that the woman is based on a real person who has received a lot of death threats makes it so much worse but Dawkins’ not knowing that hardly excuses his retweeting and thus heavily publicising the video.
@Bjarte Foshaug
I’d say I’m sorry, but I’d be lying – I’ve been gunning for your screen for years now. Finally, my mission is complete!
My only regret is that I made him out to be like Han Solo. I would like it if he was like Han Solo – a scruffy-looking nerf herder with a heart of slightly scuffed gold. Unfortunately, I’ve come to think he’s more like Boba Fett – kind of a great image from a distance who’s a hit with all the right nerds, but actually incredibly disappointing close up. I wonder if twitter has a Sarlacc pit?
The ‘unequal power dynamic’ notion was thrown at Charlie Hebdo. Apart from Binx being an individual, I see the argumentative logic as the same.