Now here’s the Richard Dawkins I consider a major asset to the atheist movement and to other atheists. It’s the Dawkins who has been giving support to Maryam Namazie for years, and continues to do so.
The sound is terrible, but there are titles. Note what Richard does and says at the end.
basically… nothing.
I suppose that’s a good thing these days?
Ichthyic, you think it was just a polite platitude, I take it.
What is meant with “Note what Richard does … at the end.”?
That he is standing up? Standing ovation?
soogeeoh @3, 1:45 elapsed.
Well, he didn’t say ‘heroine’.
Its one of the things I dont get – some of the counter criticism levelled is that Dawkins is criticised because he is king/pope of the atheists or the envious want to take him down or whatever – whereas the truth is , a good number of us did admire him.
The reason I use my real name as opposed to a pseudonym is Richard Dawkins.
Why would you say Dawkins is a major asset if all you wanted to do was bring him down or whatever.
Note how content-free the anti-Dawkins sniping has become. Just casual resentment.
One can be a ‘major asset..’ etc. and still be publicly wrong. Dawkins’ silliest pronouncements have usually been built around genuine issues and, at least attempted to, make legitimate points.
Hitchens, Ali, Harris, certainly Shermer. All have flies in the ointment. So do each of us, but we don’t have obsessive people hanging on our every word. Nor are most of us so careless or overconfident in our clarity.
Is Hitchens invalidated by his uncritical support for Edward Said? Or his break with him when he woke up? Are Ali’s experience, and resistance to Islamic bullying, retroactively wrong because of her current unsavory associations? Harris’ neuro-babble and Shermer’s Randroid/Libertarian silliness don’t make them categorically incorrect in areas outside those particular thickets.
Who’s we? I certainly do have obsessive people hanging on my every word.
Also, what are you talking about? Note what?
I really appreciate this post. When you spend a lot of time criticizing a specific individual, I think it’s good practice to seize on any opportunity you have to agree. Not only is it a generally good rule of thumb for maintaining a healthy atmosphere of civility, but it’s also a useful means of particularizing your criticism by defining its limits.
@johnthedrunkard
Are Ali’s experience, and resistance to Islamic bullying, retroactively wrong because of her current unsavory associations? Harris’ neuro-babble and Shermer’s Randroid/Libertarian silliness don’t make them categorically incorrect in areas outside those particular thickets.
But who is saying that ?
What might have been said is
a. I dont consider such people allies (because where I disagree with them is important)
b. These people are actively harmful (for the areas that we disagree)
c. The areas I agree with them seem to be coincidence – these people actually don’t seem to be able to reason correctly or overcome their biases
and other variations
I’m confused by comments 6 and 7.
I read this OP as genuinely supportive and appreciative of Dawkins for this. I think drewvogel read it that way too.
Is that wrong?
[meta]
Anthony K @11, comment #7 is interesting; it makes sense if one imagines the commenter did not actually look at the video and thus misread the OP, or (somewhat less so) if the commenter’s impression was that Ophelia was damning with faint praise.
(And #6 is clearly expressing confusion)
Anthony @ 11 – No, not at all. I meant it. I still mean it.
I’ve been attempting to bring more attention to Maryam’s work for longer than Richard has, I think, but he’s been doing it far far far more effectively, because he can. That’s a good thing, a very good thing. No jokes, no irony, no hidden meanings.
John @12, thanks, that helps.
Thanks, Ophelia. That what I thought. I also thought you were pretty unambiguous about it being a supportive message, but I appreciate the clarification of the context and why Dawkins’ support is so important here.
I think dshetty and johnthedrunkard agree with giving credit where credit is due. At least, that is how I interpreted their comments, hence my confusion.
@Anthony K
Sorry , i wasn’t clear. I meant that some of the criticism levelled at Ophelia (and others at FTB) is that because Dawkins is so popular or whatever , Ophelia etc want to bring him down – and clearly posts like this indicate that is not the case – Most of us who have criticised Dawkins, did like Dawkins and did think he made a difference and would like him to just think a little more carefully.
It was just a tangential observation , not a response to Ophelia.
@John Morales
And #6 is clearly expressing confusion
Story of my life.