In another turn of the screw, Dawkins called Adam Lee a liar. So now I have to read Adam’s piece again to see if I can find anything that can possibly justify that announcement.
The atheist movement – a loosely-knit community of conference-goers, advocacy organizations, writers and activists – has been wracked by infighting the last few years over its persistent gender imbalance and the causes of it. Many female atheists have explained that they don’t get more involved because of the casual sexism endemic to the movement: parts of it see nothing problematic about hosting conferences with all-male speakers or having all-male leadership – and that’s before you get to the vitriolic and dangerous sexual harassment, online and off, that’s designed to intimidate women into silence.
Is that it? That’s not a lie. There are people who think that, and say so – and there certainly is vitriolic and dangerous sexual harassment, online and off. It is designed to intimidate women into silence – many of the people who engage in it say so, regularly.
Richard Dawkins has involved himself in some of these controversies, and rarely for the better – as with his infamous “Dear Muslima” letter in 2011, in which he essentially argued that, because women in Muslim countries suffer more from sexist mistreatment, women in the west shouldn’t speak up about sexual harassment or physical intimidation. There was also his sneer at women who advocate anti-sexual harassment policies.
That? I followed the links, and it looks like a fair cop to me.
On Twitter these last few days, Dawkins has reverted to his old, sexist ways and then some. He’s been very busy snarling about how feminists are shrill harridans who just want an excuse to take offense, and how Harris’s critics (and his own) are not unlike thought police witch-hunter lynch mobs. Dawkins claimed that his critics are engaged in “clickbait for profit”, that they “fake outrage”, and that he wished there were some way to penalize them.
Ah maybe that’s it – the shrill harridans bit. I did notice that the first time through. I haven’t seen Dawkins say that…I’ve only seen him imply it.
Or maybe it’s this passage?
What’s so frustrating, from the standpoint of the large and growing non-religious demographic, is that Dawkins is failing badly to live up to his own standards. As both an atheist and a scientist, he should be the first to defend the principle that no one is above criticism, and that any idea can be challenged, especially an idea in accord with popular prejudices. Instead, with no discernible sense of irony, Dawkins is publicly recycling the bad arguments so often used against him as an atheist: accusing his critics of being “outrage junkies” who are only picking fights for the sake of notoriety; roaring about “thought police” as though it were a bad thing to argue that someone is mistaken and attempt to change their mind; scoffing that they’re “looking for excuses to be angry” as though the tone of the argument, rather than its factual merits, were the most important thing; encouraging those who are targets of criticism to ignore it rather than respond.
There are certainly no lies there. I could find chapter and verse for each one.
Adam has requested elucidation; it will be interesting to see if any is forthcoming.
See, Adam did it wrong. He provided all those links, see, to what Dawkins actually said! So people could read Dawkins own words and…oh.
Who wants to bet Dawkins will delete the tweet as he’s done with so many other embarrasing mishits lately?
Nope, not seeing the problem with Adam’s post. He’s right, and so are you.
Life must be hard if one defines oneself as Rational. And impossible standard breeds consternation and resentment.
…harridans…. perhaps hyperbole was involved there…like you know….referring to criticism as “witch trials” and critics as “thought police” or “Big Sister”….
He needs to spend some time in the Think About What You Did Corner…
People are coaching each other on Twitter as to what could be considered a lie in that article. It’s laughable.
It is more of that declarative style of skepticism that we love. They declare themselves global thought leaders, declare themselves not bigoted, and then declare that people are lying. They’ve got their SKEPTIC badges on, and are therefore unfallible.
I think this is what happens when Voltaire’s prayer backfires. Perhaps Dawkins should try not being so ridiculous and not encouraging ridiculousness in his fans.
So… about those tough British defamation laws… not suggesting anything, but aren’t people over there supposed to be very careful?
@Jafafa, the libel laws in Britain were changed (thanks to Simon Singh!) in 2013–the Defamation Act 2013.
@Wowbagger, I’ve got quite a few of them screen-shotted and I imagine others do, as well.
Hasn’t Dawkins himself been accused of distortion simply by quoting holy texts verbatim? Funny how religious (or at least reverent) thinking always seems to go.
Hasn’t Dawkins himself been accused of distortion simply by quoting holy texts verbatim? Funny how religious (or at least reverent) thinking seems to go.
(Sorry for the near-duplicate post. -_-;)
Regarding the possibility of a libel suit: I’m quite confident that I’ve said nothing untrue. Also, I believe U.K. libel laws are still somewhat more plaintiff-friendly than in other jurisdictions, but I live and write in the U.S., and here we have the SPEECH Act.
I think, Adam, that the question is more whether you would have a viable libel suit against Dawkins for calling you a liar.
I’m sure Michael Nugent will at any point now decry such bald-faced demonization of opponents.
*Holding breath*
Maybe the controversial bit is the part about clickbait? To my recollection, Dawkins phrased his tweet about clicks in the form of a question. (It sounded arch to me, but technically it wasn’t a declarative statement, I think?)
There’s also this ettiquette thing that seems odd to me where some of the more notable atheist leaders (in Great Britain, in the cases I’m thinking of) seem to think throwing out a lot of criticism about a group is fine, if one is just a little vague about who is in the group, but it’s terribly bad form if you get specific with a name. I personally don’t see the big difference, but I’m not known for my suave mode of expression…
Adam, what R. Johnston says… I was referring to Dawkins calling you a liar.
That storify of Adam Lee’s twitter conversation with Miranda Celeste Hale has to be read to be believed. She knows ‘dishonest’ is a thing you say to people you don’t like, but damned if she knows what a ‘dishonest’ is or what one looks like.
@PatrickG
Are you implying a blue face will be had no matter what? 😕
So what?
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/jul/22/pressandpublishing.generalelection2005
In particular: “The Vanity Fair editor, Graydon Carter, who was in court throughout the trial, said he found it “amazing” that “a man who lives in France [Roman Polanksi] can sue a magazine published in America in a British court”.”
Even under the 2013 law, if Dawkins wishes to sue you for libel all he needs to do to establish jurisdiction is demonstrate that the court is the most appropriate place to bring the action, and since your column was published in an English newspaper that standard is obviously met. Where you personally choose to live is irrelevant.
However, as I believe has already been pointed out, rather the question is whether you might choose to sue him.
There are no facts presented that Adam lied about, how can he call him a liar? The “shrill harridans” bit was maybe hyperbolic but I wouldn’t call it unfair even given his tweets about “Big Sister is Watching You” and the “Feedingfrenzy Thoughtpolice Bullies” referring to feminist criticism. Surely even his supporters who would think it unfair cannot find any lies there?
Adam’s article was very well written, factual and frankly a devastating hit to the Dawks ego. I expect many “clarification” posts to RDF and if we are lucky an “apology” post too!
yeah, at some point apologies to cover what is apparently one’s actually thinking just don’t cut it.
The rift apparently is not only deep at this point, but I don’t see a way back.
The money will go with Shermer and company, and they already have formed their new commercial enterprise.
schism is complete.
I for one, actually think this is a GOOD thing for the long term. a clear, unmuddied voice needs to be heard with regards to issues of equality, and that obviously isn’t the concern of the people running skeptic.com.
let it then be the concern of of the rest of us.
that’s fine and dandy by me.
Ophelia Benson says:
You’re kidding, right?
Jafafa Hots says:
Calling someone a liar is itself potentially libellous, and could result in a counterclaim. (That’s why the first piece of advice that lawyers give their clients is to say nothing.)
Anthony K says:
Jesus Christ, she’s embarrassing. I recall a similar argument she had with Matt Dillahunty, which was just Tweet after Tweet, accusing him of lacking rhetorical skills. The irony seemed lost on her.
Incidentally, is “freelance writer/journalist/editor” one of those euphemisms for “unemployed”? For a writer, she doesn’t seem to write much.
oolon @ 22
I’m currently (or was until a minute ago; I called him pathetic and I think he might have fainted) in a Twitter conversation with a guy who linked to a screen cap of an anonymous threat to have someone de-admin-ed from some website as evidence of “intimidation tactics” Dawikins’ critics use. I said nobody is threatening Dawkins, just criticizing and he claims Dawkins sees the threat and I just don’t know the context. So I asked what threat. The response? The threat is that the lies will become the truth, he says. Right, the unspecified “lies” in an article which is very careful to actually link back to Dawkins’ own words.
Oh for cripes sake. FSM knows, I’ve had disagreements with Matt before, but that is truly the LAST thing in the world I would accuse him of. That’s some serious WTF on her part there.
@Seven of Mine, what is your Twitter handle? I thought I knew who you were on Twitter but couldn’t see that convo … Don’t worry if you want to remain unconnected to your nym on there.
This is the convo. Daisyrawks/@daisy20071 is me.
Anybody remember when right wing talk host Kevin James supported Bush’s contention that Obama was like Chamberlain by shouting “He’s an appeaser!” When Chris Matthews asked him, point blank, exactly what Chamberlain did to appease Hitler, he couldn’t answer, but just kept repeating “appeasement”?
Have to say, the reaction from Steve Zara on twitter was very disappointing.
dereksmear,
For those of us that are untwittered, what did he say?
@ Alex
He retweeted this tweet and then followed it up with a bunch of simpering about people attacking Dawkins unfairly. Here’s his feed.