Comments

  1. R Johnston says

    Meh. Richard Dawkins may be an atheist, but he’s a highly religious man who rejects reason in favor of faith as evidenced by his virulent sexism. He’s not a skeptic, and that–not atheism–is what matters.

  2. feedmybrain says

    @RJohnston
    You’re not interested in what he has to say because of who he is and not what he’s saying. Isn’t that poor skepticism too?
    Who is speaking isn’t important, what he says is and on this subject he’s spot on.

  3. freebird says

    R Johnston, You’re Not Helping. RD is very much a skeptic, and when we judge people by their worst qualities it only serves to divide us. While he may disagree to the extent sexism is present in atheism movements, that does not disqualify him from being an atheist. We can disagree with each other, but that doesn’t mean we hate each other.

  4. Fred Salvador - The Public Sucks; Fuck Hope says

    I’d never do anything that might put money into his pocket because I find his antiquated attitude to gender equity distasteful, but I still enjoy listening to him speak about atheist topics. And evolutionary biology. Because he’s good at those things.

    Social justice not so much.

  6. sundiver says

    Dawkins’ observation that science doesn’t destroy the wonder of the cosmos is an idea I used on a post on Natalie Reed’s blog. Mainly that understanding, even if only dimly, the nature of things only adds to sense of wonder and, yes, awe at the way the universe works. What could be cooler than quantum mechanics or evolution or chaos theory? Einstein’s quip that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that we can comprehend it AT ALL is the one comment that blows away all the pious gibbering pulpit we’ve been subjected to all these years. I just wish there was a way to get more people to see this.

  8. eleutheria says

    Why does PZ even bothering quoting from this discredited, authoritarian pig? Nothing he says can be relevant any more.

  9. hotshoe says

    Well done, Richard Dawkins.

    The video is almost perfect – Dawkins twinkling and being anything but the “angry gnu” who supposedly turns off the moderates, mixed with those art shots of butterflies and magnificent galaxies. Even the soundtrack is good.

    It’s so nice to see an anti-creationist given time to speak without interruption, like “aren’t you afraid you’ll hurt their feelings if you tell them the truth about evolution?” Balance in media is way over-rated; at least in the US it allows stupid creationism to continue, because no one states as clearly as Dawkins does:

    More than 40% of the American population, if opinion polls are to be believed, think that the world is less than ten thousand years old. And that’s a shocking figure. It shows deep, profound ignorance.

    It sounds very laudable to teach the controversy, to teach both theories, but there aren’t two theories; there’s only one theory around. There’s only one game in town as far as serious science is concerned. Of course you get negative reactions from creationists, but who cares about creationists; they don’t know anything.

    Bravo!

    [transcription mine, any errors mine]

  10. nohellbelowus says

    Hmmm… comments are a bit sparse in here.

    I thought it was a good video, but it looks like the producers had to awkwardly splice in Richard’s smile as a separate clip.

    I’m gonna take you by surprise
    And make you realize,
    Muslima
    I’m gonna tell you right away,
    I can’t wait another day,
    Muslima
    I’m gonna say it like a man
    And make you understand
    Muslima
    I love you…

  12. Fred Salvador - The Public Sucks; Fuck Hope says

    Why does PZ even bothering quoting from this discredited, authoritarian pig? Nothing he says can be relevant any more.

    And yet everything he says in this video is as relevant today as it ever was.

    Dick Dwakkins is an unpleasant man for various reasons, but his shallow, myopic opinions on gender equity don’t damage his scientific credibility or put dents in his ideas about religion. They make him an unfit candidate for reverence, but his ideas are still sound.

  15. Paul J. says

    In what goddamn fairy universe is Richard Dawkins virulently sexist?

    He seems about as progressive when it comes to gender equality as old, rich guys who have read diddly-squat about feminism come. In that he, at least, believes in full gender equality… while being blinkered, privileged and blind to what women go through, sure.

    If you think Dawkins is what passes for a virulent, sexist, authoratarian pig you’re setting yourself up to be pretty fucking disappointed with the world. He’d be considered at worst a somewhat flawed progressive even here in Scandinavia.

  16. Amphiox says

    From the accompanying article, something I think is quite revealing.

    http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/06/dawkins-evolution-is-not-a-controversial-issue/

    Where do we get our morals from? We get our morals from a very complicated process of discussion, of law-making, writing, moral philosophy, it’s a complicated cultural process which changes – not just over the centuries, but over the decades. Our moral attitudes today in 2012 are very different form what they would have been 50 or 100 years ago. And even more different from what they would have been 300 years ago or 500 years ago. We don’t believe in slavery now. We treat women as equal to men. All sorts of things have changed in our moral attitudes.

    You can look back over Dawkins’ past politically oriented statements, and you will see this, time and again. Some variant of “we treat women as equal to men”. He says it all the time.

    This I think is partly the source of Dawkins’ problem with sexism. He truly believes that modern secular societies are post-sexism. And he has a vested interest in believing this, it is one of his primary reasons for preferring secularism over religion. One of the main points, which he alludes to repeatedly, that he sees is a damning feature of religion and an enlightening feature of atheism.

    It is an unexamined, emotionally vested belief. And perhaps he wants it to be true, enough that he has blinded himself to the evidence that it isn’t true.

  18. Amphiox says

    In what goddamn fairy universe is Richard Dawkins virulently sexist?

    He seems about as progressive when it comes to gender equality as old, rich guys who have read diddly-squat about feminism come. In that he, at least, believes in full gender equality… while being blinkered, privileged and blind to what women go through, sure.

    If you think Dawkins is what passes for a virulent, sexist, authoratarian pig you’re setting yourself up to be pretty fucking disappointed with the world. He’d be considered at worst a somewhat flawed progressive even here in Scandinavia.

    Only those with the unrecognized privilege of not having to deal with REAL virulent sexism can make the claim that Dawkins is “virulently sexist” and claim it to be an honest one.

    Or those who do not know what the word “virulent” actually means.

    He has unrecognized privilege that results in him acting in sexist ways in a variety of circumstances. That is not the same as “virulently sexist”.

  19. says

    Only those with the unrecognized privilege of not having to deal with REAL virulent sexism can make the claim that Dawkins is “virulently sexist” and claim it to be an honest one.

    …Oh FFS, I honestly expected better out of Pharyngula. After I just got done defending Atheism+ too. Is this really going to be the hill you die on, Amphiox? “Well he’s only PRIVILEGED and a LITTLE sexist.” It’s not like he pushes bullshit evopsych to defend the lesser place of women- oh wait, it’s exactly like that.

    It’s not like the man has never defended outright sexism with a nice added dollop of racism aside, like when he posted a letter to a bunch of pissed off feminists pretending to be a muslim woman from the middle east- oh wait, it’s exactly like that.

    It’s not like he’s ever actively belittled the plight of women in any other respect- oh wait, it’s exactly like that.

  20. says

    f you think Dawkins is what passes for a virulent, sexist, authoratarian pig

    Dawkins may not be as authoritarian as Harris, but he is actually pretty fucking authoritarian, and is also happily imperialist.

    He’d be considered at worst a somewhat flawed progressive even here in Scandinavia.

    I know people oversell Scandinavia’s feminism greatly, but if that’s true, I’m going to just chalk that up to scandinavia and RD just being a match made in islamophobe heaven.

  22. DutchA says

    Still amazed at the ongoing Dawkins-bashing as shown in a few comments. Some even go as far as to call him an awful scientist because they find issue in a fragment of his output. Is it ever going to stop?

    These commenters cast a poor reflection on the case of A+, just my 2 cents.

    Oh, the great divisiveness. I see. Exactly like that. Carry on.

  23. Paul J. says

    Dawkins may not be as authoritarian as Harris, but he is actually pretty fucking authoritarian, and is also happily imperialist.

    What the hell? Dawkins is your standard anti-war British lefty.

    I know people oversell Scandinavia’s feminism greatly, but if that’s true, I’m going to just chalk that up to scandinavia and RD just being a match made in islamophobe heaven.

    Well, Scandinavia is really more about Jew hatred than islamophobia. The OMGTHEYAREWORSETHANTHENAZIS is strong in us.

  24. Happiestsadist, opener of the Crack of Doom says

    Now, now, ruteekatreya, shouldn’t we be grateful to the nice men here who are explaining to us so patiently that he’s not really that much of a misogynist, and who cares about women anyway when he’s such a great scientists?

  25. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    I’m gonna take you by surprise
    And make you realize,
    Muslima
    I’m gonna tell you right away,
    I can’t wait another day,
    Muslima
    I’m gonna say it like a man
    And make you understand
    Muslima
    I love you…

    keeping that whole creepy thing going pretty well

  26. Amphiox says

    Is this really going to be the hill you die on, Amphiox? “Well he’s only PRIVILEGED and a LITTLE sexist.”

    I didn’t say “LITTLE”.

    Don’t put words in my mouth.

    That’s a rather dishonest thing to do.

    I thought better of you.

  28. Paul J. says

    Happiestsadist, opener of the Crack of Doom:

    You do realize that a misogynist is someone who hates women?

  30. says

    These commenters cast a poor reflection on the case of A+, just my 2 cents.

    Yeah, I know, not worshipping your heroes is badong.

    What the hell? Dawkins is your standard anti-war British lefty.

    http://www.thecommentfactory.com/richard-dawkins-interview-on-religion-evolution-and-iraq-2777/

    So no, not really.

    Well, Scandinavia is really more about Jew hatred than islamophobia. The OMGTHEYAREWORSETHANTHENAZIS is strong in us.

    I know this is a common right winger line over there and all, but disagreeing with Israel is not by default antisemitism, nor is it not islamophobia just because you think the fear is rational.

  31. Amphiox says

    And really, rutee, after all I have posted on this subject in the past, all the many criticisms I have levelled at Dawkins for all the legitimately misogynistic things he has written and done?

    You take issue that I disagree with the label “VIRULENTLY”, that on the spectrum of misogyny in the real world I put him the middle and not on the far end?

    Seriously?

  33. says

    Just because Dawkins doesn’t care about your bullshit drama doesn’t mean hes a misogynist.

    This is true; he’s a misogynist because he’s spread bullshit against women, not because he does or does not avoid drama here.

    I didn’t say “LITTLE”.

    You only contrasted him against REAL virulent misogynists *eyeroll*

    By the way rutee, did you EVEN READ my #16?

    What of it? Standard bullshit beliefs in the face of the evidence

    You do realize that a misogynist is someone who hates women?

    A misogynist is someone who perpetuates systemic oppression of women. Technically, that’s everyone, but in practice, people can be more or less than the norm for their culture. Dawkins is ‘more’.

  34. Fred Salvador - The Public Sucks; Fuck Hope says

    Now, now, ruteekatreya, shouldn’t we be grateful to the nice men here who are explaining to us so patiently that he’s not really that much of a misogynist, and who cares about women anyway when he’s such a great scientists?

    No, you’d be better off recognising that while Dick Dwakkins is a thoroughly unpleasant individual, he is still a pre-eminent evolutionary biologist and proponent of rationalism and is therefore not only worth listening to when he talks about rationalism and atheism, but also an important source of evidence against theistic creation beliefs.

    Meanwhile, people trying to mansplain away Dwakkins’ attachment to his misbegotten notions of social justice need to take a step back and recognise that the quality of his output does not excuse his misogyny. Yes, he has a lot of worthwhile things to say about certain subjects, but he’s still a chauvinist who refuses to check his privilege at the cloakroom before blundering out of his field and into discussions that he doesn’t understand.

  35. says

    What?

    Dear Muslima.

    You take issue that I disagree with the label “VIRULENTLY”, that on the spectrum of misogyny in the real world I put him the middle and not on the far end?

    Oh bullshit. You do not roll out the “ZOMG YOU DON’T KNOW OPPRESSION” line to actively defend someone merely because they haven’t moved into “Piece of shit” territory. If that’s all you meant to communicate, you suck at it, but I somehow doubt that greatly.

  36. Happiestsadist, opener of the Crack of Doom says

    Yes, that’s why I correctly used that term, Paul.

    Jarjar: apt choice of name, but fuck off with being a fanboy who’s going to tell the rest of us what sexism really is.

  37. Amphiox says

    What of it? Standard bullshit beliefs in the face of the evidence

    It was intended to be a criticism of Dawkins for doing exactly what he accuses creationists and religionists of doing, in a different sphere.

    Was it not virulent enough of a criticism to satisfy you?

    You only contrasted him against REAL virulent misogynists *eyeroll*

    Yes I did. Because there IS a contrast. The spectrum of misogyny is not binary, with only virulent or LITTLE as the only options. I think Dawkins sits in the middle, and doesn’t deserve the appelation of virulent. That doesn’t mean I think his actions are NOT sexist, or that he should be excused. I only think that he should be assigned the level of responsibility for it that he actually deserves.

    But Happiestsadist is right. I shouldn’t be mansplaining to you, and if I have already strayed beyond that line, then I should apologize now and stop digging my hole.

    So I’m not going to say anything more on this, but will shut up, lurk, and listen now.

  38. Paul J. says

    http://www.thecommentfactory.com/richard-dawkins-interview-on-religion-evolution-and-iraq-2777/

    So no, not really.

    That’s a more or less doveish approach. He opened the door on that the Iraq war might have been justified by other means (to topple the brutal dictator, presumably), and then closes it again by saying that any humanitarian justification for invasion is naive. Sounds like a standard labour post-invasion response to me.

    But I’m not even slightly exaggerating the “Jews are modern Nazis” thing. That’s a standard comment under any news articles about Jews.

    But of course the right wingers hate muslims. I just thought that was to obvious a point to mention.

  39. chigau (違わない) says

    Dear Muslima

    Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

    Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

    And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

    Richard

    … pretending to be a muslim woman from the middle east…

  40. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    Dawkins is your standard anti-war British lefty. – Paul J.

    Crap. A “standard British anti-War lefty” does not support the invasion of Afghanistan, nor regard Blair’s participation in the invasion of Iraq as any less evil than Bush’s. Nor, for that matter, does any sort of British “lefty” support the establishment of a private rich kids’ college.

  41. says

    Ah, right. Been a while. So only pretending to give a shit about muslim women to make women here shut up then. Lots better. But not the same as pretending to be a muslim women, no.

    That’s a more or less doveish approach

    “Hey, we won’t war people unless they piss us off” may be ‘doveish’ to you, but to people who actually are anti-war, it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of anything approaching anti-war.

    Sounds like a standard labour post-invasion response to me.

    That would, if true, mean labour isn’t really anti-war.

    But I’m not even slightly exaggerating the “Jews are modern Nazis” thing. That’s a standard comment under any news articles about Jews.

    Where, exactly, did you say you were from again?

  42. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    Sounds like a standard labour post-invasion response to me. – Paul J.

    And that’s just fucking bizarre. It was a Labour government that participated in the invasion, and the Labour Party continued to be led by war criminals (first Blair, then Brown) until 2010, when Brown lost the election.

  44. Sastra says

    CNN of course put the most inflammatory statement it could (“creationists know nothing”) not once, but twice, right on the front of the video. Of course WE understand the statement as saying that creationists know nothing about evolution, biology, and science. And of course the average reader — including that marvelous moderate in the reasonable middle — will willfully misunderstand him as saying that creationists know nothing about everything and anything, ignorant to the bone and pig stupid in every way: do not let them drive, do not let them vote, do not let them out of the house and do not eat their potato salad.

    “Did you see what that strident Richard Dawkins said?” Right.

  45. Fred Salvador - The Public Sucks; Fuck Hope says

    But I’m not even slightly exaggerating the “Jews are modern Nazis” thing. That’s a standard comment under any news articles about Jews.

    Scandanavia: Tolerating Anyone But Jews Since 1975!

    But of course the right wingers hate muslims. I just thought that was to obvious a point to mention.

    Unless they’re Muslim right-wingers, in which case they hate everyone who isn’t a Muslim of their denomination.

  46. devoniansplit says

    ruteekatreya: You are also a fucking moron.

    A misogynist is exactly this – a woman hater. I honestly don`t give a shit about Richard Dawkins but I do give a shit about attempting to call someone on something that they are not. Cite me a single example of Dawkins espousing the hatred of women. You have a long fucking night ahead of you, good luck.

    Oh Muslima is your example?

    Oh, sorry. Let me define misogynist for you again: woman hater – reflecting or inspired by a hatred of women. That doesn’t qualify does it?

    Try harder.

  47. ChasCPeterson says

    Why does PZ even bothering quoting from this discredited, authoritarian pig? Nothing he says can be relevant any more.

    I believe this to be another True argumentum ad hominem. What say ye, internet logicians?

    A misogynist is someone who perpetuates systemic oppression of women.

    You probably already know that that’s not what it means to most people.
    There are useful distinctions to be made between sexism and misogyny, and between garden-variety misogyny and ‘virulent’ misogyny. Going directly from OK to virulent misogyny is stupid.

  48. Happiestsadist, opener of the Crack of Doom says

    devoniansplit: Again, how exactly are you going to claim that Dear Muslima, which was written solely to shut down women complaining about sexism is anything but. A dude telling women to shut up or else they’ll get something to cry about. Fuck off.

  49. says

    Cite me a single example of Dawkins espousing the hatred of women.

    Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

    Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

    And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

    Richard

    That took me about 10 seconds.

    Oh, sorry. Let me define misogynist for you again: woman hater – reflecting or inspired by a hatred of women. That doesn’t qualify does it?

    Uh, yeah, dude, minimizing shit that happens tow omen is actually hatred of women. That you’re an ignorant asshat about systemic issues doesn’t surprise me, but w/e.

    Scandanavia: Tolerating Anyone But Jews Since 1975!

    I’m about 95% sure the jackass’ representation is dishonest, fwiw.

  50. says

    You probably already know that that’s not what it means to most people.

    I took the trouble to define it, didn’t I asshole?

    Going directly from OK to virulent misogyny is stupid.

    Not as stupid as this wheedling bullshit to defend the dude as not being TOO horrifically bad. Wasted effort, considering he’s pretty fucking bad.

  51. devoniansplit says

    Happiestsadist: An excellent fucking argument, well done; “or else they’ll get something to cry about”. CITE WHERE HE SAID THAT. Oh it was merely implied? Oh sorry, I missed that fucking outlandish interpretation? Get the fucking facts or shut the fuck up.

    ruteekatreya: God damn, you are useless, aren`t you. Let me quote from my original comment – which you failed to address:

    “Oh Muslima is your example?

    Oh, sorry. Let me define misogynist for you again: woman hater – reflecting or inspired by a hatred of women. That doesn’t qualify, does it?

    Try harder.”

  52. says

    Bit late in the game…but R Johnston is a fucking moron and needs to know this.

    ruteekatreya: You are also a fucking moron.

    Hi. My name is devoniansplit, and I believe that anyone who disagrees with my favourite atheists is automatically less intelligent than me, and thus below me and deserving of nothing more than pure dismissal.

    No gods, no masters. Not even Dawkins. Go away, this is a sacred-free zone.

  53. devoniansplit says

    Setár: Unsurprisingly, you are also useless – assuming you are in fact capable of reading a comment – read my comment number 46; better yet I will quote for you.

    “I honestly don`t give a shit about Richard Dawkins but I do give a shit about attempting to call someone on something that they are not.”

    AND this to you, translated to:

    “My name is devoniansplit, and I believe that anyone who disagrees with my favourite atheists is automatically less intelligent than me, and thus below me and deserving of nothing more than pure dismissal.”

    And my rebuttal to you:

    Learn to fucking read, moron.

  55. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    I believe this to be another True argumentum ad hominem. What say ye, internet logicians?

    ding ding ding

  58. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Why does PZ even bothering quoting from this discredited, authoritarian pig? Nothing he says can be relevant any more.

    I believe this to be another True argumentum ad hominem. What say ye, internet logicians?

    Hmmm. Tough call. The inclusion of discredited may make it permissible.

    “He isn’t relevant, and shouldn’t be approvingly cited, because he’s been thoroughly discredited” is a good heuristic. On the other hand, that’s not quite what was said. While “nothing he says is relevant any more” is probably true, “nothing he says can be relevant any more” is false.

    However, it’s false on its own, independent of the personal attack. Had the wording been “Why does PZ even bothering quoting from this discredited, [authoritarian pig]? Nothing he says is relevant any more”, that would be fine [the bit in brackets is optional and could be replaced with person]. So, as it isn’t the personal attack that’s actually the problem here, I’m going to have to call this one against you. How much did you wager?

  59. says

    “In all, 12.5 percent of the population have distinct prejudices against Jews. In a European context, this makes the prevalence of anti-Semitic thinking relatively low in Norway and on the same level as Great Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden,” according to the report.”

  60. Amphiox says

    A misogynist is exactly this – a woman hater.

    No it’s not. There is a spectrum of misogyny and this dictionary definition is only one extreme end of it.

    And argument by dictionary is just about as credible as argument by Godwin.

    If you MUST have your dictionary definition, then realize that the meaning of the word “hater” is far broader than you appear to think.

  61. Paul J. says

    ruteekatreya:

    As I said, Norwegians aren’t even particularly prejudiced toward Jews in general. Which makes this absurdly prevalent “Israel is like Nazi Germany” thing even stranger.

  62. says

    Amphiox #60:

    No it’s not. There is a spectrum of misogyny…

    As a member of many privileged groups and thus very likely to privilege fail…no. Just no.

    The decision to be skeptical about one’s “equal” footing is no different than being skeptical about one’s religion. You either dispense with the mental gymnastics or embrace them. A, or not-A. There is no more such a thing as not checking privilege and not not checking privilege at the same time than there is in not believing and not not believing in god at the same time. It’s pure doublethink. Knock it off.

  63. Amphiox says

    The decision to be skeptical about one’s “equal” footing is no different than being skeptical about one’s religion. You either dispense with the mental gymnastics or embrace them. A, or not-A. There is no more such a thing as not checking privilege and not not checking privilege at the same time than there is in not believing and not not believing in god at the same time. It’s pure doublethink. Knock it off.

    Well, when it’s expressed this way, I can’t disagree.

    Thank you for pointing it out.

  64. Paul J. says

    Setár:

    There is no more such a thing as not checking privilege and not not checking privilege at the same time than there is in not believing and not not believing in god at the same time. It’s pure doublethink. Knock it off.

    While that is of course strictly speaking true, I still have far more time for someone who is simply ignorant on an issue (say, hasn’t contemplated the very real risk of sexual assault women routinely face), rather than frat boys on facebook talking about how this or that feminist secretly wants to be raped. They may both be a part of an endemic problem in society but I’d only have beer with one of them.

    To deny that there are variously obnoxious and dangerous levels of sexism is like denying that there are variously obnoxious and dangerous levels of faith in god.

  66. MG Myers says

    Kudos to RD for his willingness to do the candid CNN interview! Hopefully with more and more exposure to accurate scientific information, the inaccurate beliefs of the public will be continually chipped away.

    Speaking of exposure, did you notice that RD has an upcoming October US tour in Colorado, Hawaii, California, Oregon, Texas and Michigan? Folks are fortunate if they can go to the talks near them; RD gives fantastic science presentations!

    Also, I noticed that Andy Thomson will be giving a talk in Smyrna, Georgia on September 9th. I recently heard him give a wonderful presentation at the American Atheist Minnesota Regional Conference. He’s definitely a speaker worth checking out!

  67. JohnnieCanuck says

    Paul @ 65.

    Comment #1 by R Johnston certainly meets my definition of a Poe. Don’t recall any previous posts from that ‘nym, so judging only by what’s there, I vote that it’s a parody. Also that it is intended to stir up shit, which meets my definition of Trolling.

  69. see_the_galaxy says

    did anybody archive thunderf00t’s web page/blog here at FreethoughtBlogs? It seems to have been deleted.

  70. tvstvs says

    The problem with Dawkins is he has displayed his inability to direct his supposed skeptical thinking at the world we live in(as we’ve found out when he’s directed his ‘rational thinking’ at issues related to sexism and islamophobia), so by his own standards he fails as a skeptic.

  71. hotshoe says

    Kudos to RD for his willingness to do the candid CNN interview! Hopefully with more and more exposure to accurate scientific information, the inaccurate beliefs of the public will be continually chipped away.

    Speaking of exposure, did you notice that RD has an upcoming October US tour in Colorado, Hawaii, California, Oregon, Texas and Michigan? Folks are fortunate if they can go to the talks near them; RD gives fantastic science presentations!

    I’d go see him if I could. He’ll be sorta near where I live, but on a day when I expect to be scheduled at work, maybe something I can get around but will have to see next month … the one I’d pay extra for is his talk at the US Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs – home of the christian taliban in Air Force uniforms. Expect fireworks!

  72. says

    Seriously, RD’s on my shitlist, but even so, I see no reason to go agreeing with trolls who are trying to make fights by exaggerating everything. I’m more annoyed by the misrepresentation than by the Dawkosaurus.

    And yeah, of course there ARE degrees. One of the points of the A+ forum having its educational subforum, and the BIG point of feminism 101 and similar sites, is that not everyone is well educated on everything. If we all have to be perfect, there won’t be any of us.

  74. says

    Fred Salvador at #34 FTW. Dawkins fails completely on SJ issues, but that doesn’t negate his contributions to science.

    Devoniansplit, I see you’re as fucking clueless about those issues yourself as you were the last time you popped up here.

    Setàr, “moron” no longer denotes a developmental disability or the need to prevent same via eugenics. Linking to that WP page is pretty dishonest.

    Paul J., the views of the “fratboys” wouldn’t get any traction without all the “reasonable,” “objective” menz who are all too happy to concern-troll women about being “too angry” or “too militant” or “too sensitive” about sexism. You know, like you. You can have a beer with the rest of them because their views don’t harm you.

    Gawd, you’re a patronizing shitheel.

    Alethea:

    Or, what Paul J. said.

    No. Jesus Christ, you’re really fucking dim and complacent sometimes.

  78. vaiyt says

    Some people seem to think sexism and misogyny are smaller problems than the assignment of the wrong degree of sexism/misogyny to Richard Dawkins.

  79. Lachlan says

    #21 – koncorde:

    I’m sorry I must have missed the hipster notice to hate on Dawkins.

    Too right.

  80. Ichthyic says

    Dawkins’ scientific contributions aren’t negated by his misogyny.

    I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating.

    Dawkins has been primarily a populizer (and one of the best) of science and teacher for years, he doesn’t really contribute to the actual body of the scientific literature itself any more.

    IIRC, the last experimental paper he published was in the early 80s.

    again, stressing this is not to take away value from what he does, far from it. very few scientists actually become good communicators of science.

    it’s just to clarify that Dawkins is often mistaken AS a scientist, as in “current”, when he really isn’t.

    regardless, you’re right in saying that even if he decided to machine gun an entire neighborhood of orphan children, it would not, or at least should not, have an impact on the body of work he has already published.

    it still leaves plenty of room to critique his killing spree.

    :)

  81. Ichthyic says

    If we all have to be perfect, there won’t be any of us.

    I’m finding it hard to reconcile the attitude you expressed here, with the immediate follow-up attack on Daisy.

  82. says

    Ichthyic:

    regardless, you’re right in saying that even if he decided to machine gun an entire neighborhood of orphan children, it would not, or at least should not, have an impact on the body of work he has already published.

    I can see the A* tweets now: A+ is accusing Dawkins of gunning down orphan children. #FTBullies

  84. drosera says

    Professor Dawkins has done more for the cause of atheism and rational thought than PZ Meyers and his united commentariat put together. It’s disgusting to see a bunch of troglodytes here attempting to assassinate his character. PZ can be proud of his pack of zombies.

  85. Amphiox says

    Professor Dawkins has done more for the cause of atheism and rational thought than PZ Meyers and his united commentariat put together.

    And he is being criticized for what he has NOT done for the cause of gender equality, so the above is utterly irrelevant.

  86. Amphiox says

    You can have a beer with the rest of them because their views don’t harm you.

    This is a very important thing to remember, something which I did not consider sufficiently yesterday.

    When are you going to stop being a clueless second-waver Chill Girl?

    But this, considering the target’s recent commenting history, is uncalled for. Or at the least, quite uncharitable.

  87. drosera says

    And he is being criticized for what he has NOT done for the cause of gender equality, so the above is utterly irrelevant.

    Did you read comment #8? (Just one of many examples.)

    You either don’t know what you are talking about or are a liar.

  88. chigau (違わない) says

    You either don’t know what you are talking about or are a liar.

    Now. Now.
    Don’t be rude.
    What would Richard do?

  91. anteprepro says

    Drosera, you read that statement incorrectly.

    The thing you responded to is “And he is being criticized for what he has NOT done for the cause of gender equality, so the above is utterly irrelevant.” Which means that Dawkins is not helping the cause of gender equality.

    You have apparently read this as “And he is NOT being criticized for what he has done for the cause of gender equality, so the above is utterly irrelevant.” As that is the only way that your reference to comment 8 makes sense.

    You have misread the statement you were responding to, so your response is moot.

    Try again?
    [Insert 2 coins]

  93. anteprepro says

    No, I just think you’re an illiterate dumbfuck and I was trying to be playful in pointing it out because you hadn’t yet posted three times. The fact that you can’t either can’t see or admit that your reply to Amphiox was completely wrong-headed is just a testament to your incredible, mind-boggling idiocy.

  94. anteprepro says

    Subtract one “can’t” from the previous comment.

    See, no one is perfect. Now why don’t you follow suit and admit your mistake, instead of doubling down when you are obviously wrong?

  96. says

    The A* crowd are trying hard to paint the A+ movement with false colours as abusive bullies.

    And opposing dawkins is TOTES MCGOTES being an abusive bully. *Eyeroll*.

    It’s disgusting to see a bunch of troglodytes here attempting to assassinate his character

    The dude is a fucking sexist asshat. I don’t give a flying fuck about what he’s done for atheism in the face of that. If you think being called a sexist is ‘character assassination’, then character assassination is a meaningless term. Or you’re just totally unfamiliar with his body of work there.

    . If we all have to be perfect, there won’t be any of us.

    If I expected perfection, I would exist in a never ending stream of curse words thrown at literally every human being. My standards are not so high; ‘don’t be a flagrant asshole to the marginalized’.

  97. anteprepro says

    That’s a very clever and innovative to ignore inconvenient facts while pretending that you actually have something to say.

    Bravo, dumbfuck.

  100. drosera says

    Uh, that was directed towards drosera, in case it wasn’t clear :P

    It fits ruteekatrya to a tee anyway.

  101. anteprepro says

    People can read what you wrote before, dumbfucks.

    But they think that if they can ignore that or deny it enough, it will just go away. While most of us developed to the point where we are no longer infants, where we no longer think things vanish from existence if they aren’t in our line of sight, trolls that seem to have not developed that far. They have tried their damndest to avoid having object permanence. They apparently think that when they close their eyes just tight enough, everything they want gone will go away. It’s like The Secret for people who suck at debating.

    It fits ruteekatrya to a tee anyway.

    So, there’s no hope of you saying anything of substance anymore, is there?

  102. says

    Yeah, Dawkins having done good owrk popularizing science is so inconvenient. That really makes it hard to make my points, not the minor cult of personality he spawns who brook no criticism.

  103. drosera says

    So, there’s no hope of you saying anything of substance anymore, is there?

    Well, what do you expect from someone who displayed, in your words, ‘incredible, mind-boggling idiocy’? (Isn’t ‘idiocy’ an ableist slur, by the way?)

    I haven’t seen you objecting to comments like #8, while you jumped at once on my rebuke to Amphiox. I must assume that you consider slandering Richard Dawkins less objectionable than protesting against the slander. That makes you intellectually equivalent to a zombie, in my estimation; I treated you accordingly.

    Now is your chance to correct my first impression.

  104. anteprepro says

    I haven’t seen you objecting to comments like #8, while you jumped at once on my rebuke to Amphiox.

    Because 8 was roughly 80 comments ago, simply overstated their case, and had already been addressed. You, however, were recent and abjectly wrong. Which you still haven’t admitted, because you are a fuckwitted coward, BAAWWWING over how mean I was to you by daring to point out that you were wrong.

    That makes you intellectually equivalent to a zombie, in my estimation;

    Says the person who has yet to actually respond to the argument that they have whined about for my simply making it.

    Get your head out of your ass. Or just fuck off. Either way.

  105. drosera says

    The dude [Richard Dawkins] is a fucking sexist asshat. I don’t give a flying fuck about what he’s done for atheism in the face of that.

    Comment #96. Is that recent enough for you?

    Pro tip: Asserting that you pointed out that someone was wrong doesn’t prove that someone was wrong.

    I don’t think you are being mean at all, don’t worry. Just vulgar and obtuse.

  106. says

    No, Amphiox,

    But this, considering the target’s recent commenting history, is uncalled for. Or at the least, quite uncharitable.

    given her history here, and I’ve been lurking for a long time, I don’t think it is.

    Oh, heavens, Drosera, we wouldn’t want to be vulgar. Shall I have the butler pull up the fainting couch and the maid fetch you the smelling salts?

  107. drosera says

    Oh, heavens, Drosera, we wouldn’t want to be vulgar. Shall I have the butler pull up the fainting couch and the maid fetch you the smelling salts?

    Not necessary, thank you very much. It does have a certain charm. Being here is a bit like slumming. Or watching Scarface.

  108. anathema says

    I must assume that you consider slandering Richard Dawkins less objectionable than protesting against the slander.

    Slander? Really?

    I don’t see how someone having a different opinion of Dawkins than you do is slander.

  109. drosera says

    I don’t see how someone having a different opinion of Dawkins than you do is slander.

    Jeezus, this place makes Night of the living Dead look like a documentary.

    Okay, FYI:

    slander v. [with obj.] make false and damaging statements about (someone). [Oxford]

    Exercise for the reader: Find at least one such statement about Richard Dawkins in this thread.

  110. see_the_galaxy says

    Dawkins may disappoint in his response to American internet flame wars. However, it’s fanatical, extreme, and uncharitable to denounce him completely. He’s been a welcome progressive voice in many ways, and he’s helped the cause of atheism immensely. He needs to quit stirring the pot by retweets–no question. However, each of us, including Dawkins, the Watson-haters, and all of you, have a responsibility to treat people fairly. I never thought I’d see the level of meanness, bitterness, and childishness I’ve seen lately in the atheist community.

  111. says

    Dawkins being a sexist asshole isn’t slander*, because it’s true. Any sane defamation law has a truth defense.

    Pro tip: Asserting that you pointed out that someone was wrong doesn’t prove that someone was wrong.

    I can link his stupid evopsych rants, but fora n asshole who won’t recognize dear muslima, it seems wasted effort. Do you think Dear Muslima was sexist**, or not?

    *Well, Libel.
    **Also really, really racist, for that matter.

  112. anathema says

    @ Drosera (#109)

    Look, I’m not nearly as anti-Dawkins as some of the people on this thread. I think he’s done a lot of good work popularizing science and I still find a lot of value in some of his writings. But you know what? I can still 1) recognize the fact that Dawkins has said sexist things, 2) sympathize with those who want absolutely nothing to do with Dawkins anymore because of the sexist things he’s said, 3) acknowledge that being a sexist is worse than calling sexism out, and 4) understand that some stating their opinion — especially when they can cite facts to back that opinion up — doesn’t qualify as slander.

    I’m not sure which one of those four things it is that makes me a zombie in your mind. But if I were to stop doing any of those four things, then I’d be a willfully ignorant, denialist douchebag. I think I’d rather be a zombie.

  113. Lachlan says

    Can someone please provide quotes of the sexist things Richard Dawkins has said? I’m seeings lots of passionate decrying, and not much of the actual alleged sexism.

  115. Lachlan says

    Those two examples, even if they portrayed genuine sexism, don’t come close to justifying the toxicity of hatred and rejection that have been hurled at him in the comments above. The reactions have been astoundingly disproportionate.

  116. says

    Those two examples, even if they portrayed genuine sexism, don’t come close to justifying the toxicity of hatred and rejection that have been hurled at him in the comments above. The reactions have been astoundingly disproportionate.

    By what metric are you grading response appropriateness?

    See I would put something like egging Dawkin’s house as disproportionate. calling him an asshole seems proportionate.

  117. says

    Can someone please provide quotes of the sexist things Richard Dawkins has said? I’m seeings lots of passionate decrying, and not much of the actual alleged sexism.

    *Muslima
    *The casual sex challenge (which demonstrate hillarious failure at constructing an experiment)
    *retweet a “maybe if women wern’t so bitchy they wouldn’t be harassed” comment
    *Suggesting RW and others just do it for attention for ad money and suggesting a boycott

  118. Lachlan says

    I’m not aware of this “casual sex challenge” thing. If you could enlighten me, I’d be appreciative.

    Also, the actual text of his retweet would be nice too, assuming it’s not the Lucy Wainwright one above?

    And I agree, his suggestion that FtB is drumming up false controversy for the express intention of increased revenue was completely ill-considered, and he knew it almost immediately. How you get “virulent sexism” from that is quite baffling to me.

  119. says

    @Lachlan

    I don’t know the official title but basically it was a hypothetical wager that if you had a group of men proposition women for sex out of the blue on campus and a group of women the women would be far more successful. Dawkins draws conclusions from this thought experiment.

    And I agree, his suggestion that FtB is drumming up false controversy for the express intention of increased revenue was completely ill-considered, and he knew it almost immediately.

    No he did not knew it almost immediately, he was corrected. and he only withdrew the boycott idea because it wouldn’t work not out of any lack of malice.

    Again what’s your metric because it doesn’t seem rational to me.

  120. Forbidden Snowflake says

    Ing, there was both a thought experiment and an actual experiment. Dawkins seems to believe that this demonstrates a biological difference, and has failed, to the best of my knowledge, to take any of the obvious criticisms (which came from feminists, yes) on board.

  121. ChasCPeterson says

    Ing. ffs. Do a tiny amount of research–you’re already on the motherfucking internetz–before you blow your off-the-top-o-yer-head wad in public.

    Hey, Jerry Coyne has characterized people on this thread as “a pack of slavering dogs.”
    here

  124. anteprepro says

    Drosera at 106:

    Pro tip: Asserting that you pointed out that someone was wrong doesn’t prove that someone was wrong.

    I’ve shown, with probably too little brevity to let it sink in, that it is likely that you misread Amphiox, because that misreading would make your argument more coherent than if you weren’t misreading. And you replied with absolute dross. On the matter of “prove it”, you have yet to prove that you have any idea what the fuck you are talking about.

    How about I put it this way: Show how your response to Amphiox’s comment makes sense. Show your work regarding exactly how comment 8 is a half-way coherent rebuttal to “And he is being criticized for what he has NOT done for the cause of gender equality, so the above is utterly irrelevant.” Good fucking luck.

    (I actually have noticed a way that my initial response to you could be wrong and you could have made that rebuttal without necessarily misreading Amphiox. It just makes your argument incredibly inane and based in ignorance. One can only hope that you can attain such heights!)

  125. drosera says

    anteprepro,

    It’s not my fault if you can’t recognise that Amphiox’s reply to me was a strawman argument. Amphiox wrote as if I had claimed that Dawkins should not be criticised because of his accomplishments, whereas I had said, paraphrasing, that he shouldn’t be thrown under the bus. Comment #8 was an example of someone doing the latter.

    Zombies may not be too bright but they are good at strawmanning, or so it would seem (this applies to Anathema @112 as well.)

    If you can’t see the difference between legitimate criticism and maniacal exaggerations amounting to character assassination, which was what I addressed, then you can’t be helped.

  126. Ichthyic says

    Hey, Jerry Coyne has characterized people on this thread as “a pack of slavering dogs.”

    that was very slimy of you to bait the folks here like that.

    seriously.

  127. says

    Hey, Jerry Coyne has characterized people on this thread as “a pack of slavering dogs.”

    “Irrational hating dumbfucks” would have been closer to the truth I think.

  129. ChasCPeterson says

    that was very slimy of you

    Why? See to me, it was Coyne’s gratuitous demeaning snipe that was slimy. And yeah, I said so there; he doubled down.
    Despite the fact that I publicly disagreed above with the people he was talking about.
    I don’t make the shit, but I might stir it a bit.

  130. hotshoe says

    Chas-

    Hey, Jerry Coyne has characterized people on this thread as “a pack of slavering dogs.”
    here

    Naughty, Chas. That’s not really what Jerry Coyne said. Here are his actual words:

    In the comments section below, please stick to the interview and topics covered by Dawkins. We’re not going to have a pack of slavering dogs accusing Richard of being a “raving misogynist,” since he isn’t.

    Jerry’s post is after this thread got rolling, and I think it’s likely that Jerry does have Pharyngula in mind when he writes that … but it’s stupid to accuse Jerry of saying something specifically about people on this thread when he ever-so-politely resisted the temptation of making it specifically about the Horde.

    It’s more of a “if the shoe fits, wear it” kinda thing.

  132. anteprepro says

    Dross:

    Amphiox wrote as if I had claimed that Dawkins should not be criticised because of his accomplishments, whereas I had said, paraphrasing, that he shouldn’t be thrown under the bus. Comment #8 was an example of someone doing the latter.

    You actually said:

    Professor Dawkins has done more for the cause of atheism and rational thought than PZ Meyers and his united commentariat put together. It’s disgusting to see a bunch of troglodytes here attempting to assassinate his character. PZ can be proud of his pack of zombies.

    You called it character assassination for us to criticize Dawkins because Good Ol’ Dawks has done lots for the cause of atheism. Amphiox said that it is fair game to criticize him because he does, in fact, suck in regards to women’s rights. His response was perfectly fine and actually addressed your point.

    And then you respond with (according to your current ad hoc explanation) “Well, comment 8 threw Dawkins under the bus!”. Your response was inane and didn’t actually engage with what Amphiox said.

    If you can’t see the difference between legitimate criticism and maniacal exaggerations amounting to character assassination, which was what I addressed, then you can’t be helped.

    Do you think we can’t read your original comment anymore? That is just vanished into the wind? No, I think it is pretty clear that our problem with you is that you seem to be unable to distinguish between criticism and character assassination. You do realize that the people calling Dawkins sexist aren’t just doing it for the sake of mudslinging, right? That the charge is actually based on shit Dawkins has said?

    I can only say that you accusing others of “strawman” is the height of irony.

  133. ChasCPeterson says

    here. (You have to be polite at Coyne’s.)

    I acknowledge that linking his comment to this particular thread was jumping to a post hoc ergo prompter hoc conclusion.

    Still, if it’s a shoe-fits-wear-it thing then he was, in fact, talking about people on this particular thread whether he knew and intended it or not.

  135. says

    Another guy we’re supposed to respect who just blows a circuit breaker and insists Dawkins is above reproach.

    Rutee, do you ever ask yourself if what you write is true? Does it concern you? I read your rubbish here and I’m not sure what to think. Either you don’t know better, or you just don’t care.

    I do not insist that Dawkins is beyond reproach, as you falsely claim. That would have been obvious to you had you bothered to check the original Muslima thread. But I am able to have a nuanced view on his accomplishments as a science communicator. Whereas you clearly are not.

  137. hotshoe says

    here. (You have to be polite at Coyne’s.)

    I acknowledge that linking his comment to this particular thread was jumping to a post hoc ergo prompter hoc conclusion.

    Still, if it’s a shoe-fits-wear-it thing then he was, in fact, talking about people on this particular thread whether he knew and intended it or not.

    I agree with you that Jerry labeling “a pack…” is an unfortunate metaphor. Too bad Jerry didn’t take your point gracefully.

    He could have infinitely more nuanced ways to state that people who (wrongfully, in his opinion) call Dawkins “misogynist” lack nuance themselves on the questions of sexism and what that implies about how seriously we should take Dawkins on his core subject of biology education.

  138. anteprepro says

    Rorshach’s first:

    “Irrational hating dumbfucks” would have been closer to the truth I think.

    Glad to see that you’re able to enter the thread just as venomous as drosera, with half as much substance.

    Rorshach’s second:

    But I am able to have a nuanced view on his accomplishments as a science communicator.

    *Searches first quote for the nuance*

    Dare I say [citation needed]?

  139. says

    do you ever ask yourself if what you write is true?

    I do, strangey, and I know you do too.

    Dawkins being a sexist asshole isn’t slander*, because it’s true. Any sane defamation law has a truth defense.

    Rutee says it’s true, so it must be true. Right? Never mind arguments.

  141. hotshoe says

    anteprepro –

    Rorschach didn’t claim to have a nuanced view of the dumbfucks who hate Dawkins nowadays (when they refuse to acknowledge any good Dawkins has ever done).

    Why would he? What obligation does rorschach (or anyone) have to take a nuanced view of those persons who say blatantly dumbfuck shit like

    Why does PZ even bothering quoting from this discredited, authoritarian pig? Nothing he says can be relevant any more.

    and

    The dude is a fucking sexist asshat. I don’t give a flying fuck about what he’s done for atheism in the face of that.

    So, no, rorschach’s two quotes aren’t in contradiction and you have no justification for your snarky “citation needed”.

  142. strange gods before me ॐ says

    I do, strangey, and I know you do too.

    Then how did you fail to recognize that Rutee’s acknowledgement of Dawkins as a science communicator demonstrates your claim to be false?

    It’s kind of sad that you ignore what she’s said in this very thread, while implying that if she should be considering your comments from Elevatorgate.

    Rutee says it’s true, so it must be true. Right? Never mind arguments.

    Dawkins is a sexist asshole. Her arguments are at #19, #33, #49, and #111.

    That would be the same #111 that you just quoted from, asserting that she’d made no arguments, while ignoring the argument she made in that very comment:

    I can link his stupid evopsych rants, but for an asshole who won’t recognize dear muslima, it seems wasted effort. Do you think Dear Muslima was sexist**, or not?

    You’re sounding like a dumbass here, rorschach. Try harder.

  144. strange gods before me ॐ says

    hotshoe being incorrect:

    dumbfucks who hate Dawkins nowadays (when they refuse to acknowledge any good Dawkins has ever done).

    Here is an acknowledgement. Which you ignore.

    The dude is a fucking sexist asshat. I don’t give a flying fuck about what he’s done for atheism in the face of that.

    What’s supposedly wrong with this, anyway? Dawkins is a fucking sexist asshat. Nobody is obliged to give a flying fuck what he’s done for atheism.

    Acknowledging is very different from giving a fuck.

  145. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Kind of what SC said…Dawkins seems kind of irrelevant to anything of interest to me*.

    I guess other people don’t think so.

    But the stuff that he’s saying in this particular clip is atheism 101. Yawn.

    *his very sexists noises notwithstanding…we are so awash in this nonsense, that his voice in this regard is hardly distinguishable from the inchoate roar of bullshit that the interwebz delivers daily.

  146. drosera says

    Anteprepro,

    Even for a zombie you are unusually dim-witted.

    You called it character assassination for us to criticize Dawkins because Good Ol’ Dawks has done lots for the cause of atheism.

    No, my pale-faced friend, that’s not what I said. It’s what the mouldy stuff you call your brain has made up. The words ‘because’ and ‘criticize’ here are entirely your unwarranted and devious inventions. Your whole feeble excuse for an argument hinges on this, as you know very well. You have no leg to stand on. And do educate yourself on the meaning of the word ‘paraphrase’.

    No, I think [sic!] it is pretty clear that our [sic] problem with you is that you seem to be unable to distinguish between criticism and character assassination.

    You owe me a new irony meter.

  147. drosera says

    Wow, the zombies are out in full force today.

    strange gods before before me,

    I said Dawkins was a sexist shit before Dear Muslima.

    What an amazing accomplishment. You must be so proud of yourself. Give yourself a pat on the back. But not too strongly or your arm may fall off.

    SC (Salty Current), OM,

    I can’t think of many people about whose views I less want to hear at the moment than Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne.

    Jerry Coyne? Oh, I see, the friends of your enemies are your enemies. Purge the bastard. Order Richard Carrier to kick him into the sewers.

  148. says

    I still want to know how much nuance is necessary to say someone did their job well while being a terrible human. The concept isn’t that controversial.

    Rutee says it’s true, so it must be true. Right? Never mind arguments.

    Technically, whether I made my arguments or not, the facts would still be on my side. It’s rather an interesting thing to say ‘never mind arguments’, rather than ‘never mind facts’. An unintentional slip, perhaps?

    This notwithstanding that I did make arguments. Never mind them indeed.

    who hate Dawkins nowadays

    ‘nowadays’? Feminists have been pissed with him a lot longer than you seem to realize.

    What obligation does rorschach (or anyone) have to take a nuanced view of those persons who say blatantly dumbfuck shit like

    Not that you can actually gainsay what I said or anything, but that’s immaterial; he has no obligation, but he can not then carp about how people ‘don’t show nuance’.

  149. hotshoe says

    hotshoe being incorrect:

    dumbfucks who hate Dawkins nowadays (when they refuse to acknowledge any good Dawkins has ever done).

    Here is an acknowledgement. Which you ignore.

    You’re being an ass about me when you flat-out state that I ignore Rutee’s words. It’s simply not true that I ignore that one little bit (which you linked). You have NO way of knowing what I “ignore” (which is my internal state that you have no access to) vs. what I choose merely not to mention in print. But not surprisingly, you choose to put a worse interpretation on it; you state that I “ignore” rather than charitably assume that I merely missed it, or even more charitably, notice that example is totally irrelevant to the actual comment about dumbfuck shit people say. Note, the quote I provided as evidence of dumbfuck shit people say was prior to Rutee’s grudging “Yeah, Dawkins having done good owrk popularizing science is so inconvenient”. And it followed nine other spiteful comments by Rutee about how everyone was doing it rong if they ignored Dawkins’ sexism; none of said comments included any acknowledgement whatsoever that she nowadays respects Dawkins for his good work.
    So, no, I’m not ignoring one tiny little bit of Rutee’s continuous diatribe and I now state that, as a defense of her “good” position on Dawkins, one tiny bit is effectively worthless. One “attaboy” doesn’t make up for ten “Fuck him”. Rutee should be treated with nuance? Then she fucking well should have shown some herself in her first ten comments on this subject.
    I don’t know why you want to argue with me – about anything – and especially not if you have to lie about my internal state of mind to make your supposed point. I dislike you immensely and I’m happy if it shows. I won’t respond to you any further, no matter how far from the truth your next statements about me turn out to be.

  151. vaiyt says

    I think the unspoken question here is: are we supposed to put Dawkins’ “contributions to Atheism” above his tendency to be a sexist, racist asshat?

    Praising him for the former and criticizing him for the latter are both valid. Since many people here are dedicated to progressive causes, they think the latter is more important, especially since Dawkins already has enough fanpoodles willing to praise him.

    As for myself, I’m on Team Dawkins Is A Sexist Asshat. I do not have any particular attachment with atheism, especially not atheism that doesn’t do anything to improve on the ills propagated by religious thinking. If Dawkins is going to kill God just to make things the same, then fuck him. And fuck you as well.

  153. hotshoe says

    What obligation does rorschach (or anyone) have to take a nuanced view of those persons who say blatantly dumbfuck shit like

    Not that you can actually gainsay what I said or anything, but that’s immaterial; he has no obligation, but he can not then carp about how people ‘don’t show nuance’.

    Rutee, you’re being fucking incoherent. First, rorschach wasn’t “carping” about how people don’t show nuance. Second, there’s no contradiction between rorschach having a nuanced view of Dawkins (and wanting other people to do the same) vs rorschach not having a nuanced view of “irrational hating dumbfucks” (and wanting them to stop the shit). Intolerance of intolerant dumbfucks is a good thing, right? Since that’s what rorschach is doing – being intolerant of intolerance – rorschach is to the good here.

  155. Forbidden Snowflake says

    Intolerance of intolerant dumbfucks is a good thing, right? Since that’s what rorschach is doing – being intolerant of intolerance – rorschach is to the good here.

    Actually, if being intolerant of intolerance is a good thing, then you should approve of the people condemning Dawkins for his sexist statements. I think rorschach is technically being intolerant of intolerance of intolerance, which is a bad thing.

  156. drosera says

    If you’re ignorant of the context of a remark, it’s wise to refrain from responding to it.

    Except that I like reading Jerry Coyne’s website, so it annoys me when he is apparently being set up by people like you to become the next victim of the Professional Slandering™ brigade.

  157. Forbidden Snowflake says

    Except that I like reading Jerry Coyne’s website, so it annoys me when he is apparently being set up by people like you to become the next victim of the Professional Slandering™ brigade.

    Whut? You need people here to like Jerry Coyne so that you can continue to enjoy his blog?

  158. says

    Intolerance of intolerant dumbfucks is a good thing, right? Since that’s what rorschach is doing – being intolerant of intolerance – rorschach is to the good here.

    Ahahaha, thanks. I wasn’t sure about you dude, but now I can be. According to you, we’re to tolerate racism, imperialism, sexism, and numerous other social ills? Reconsider your life.

  159. drosera says

    Whut? You need people here to like Jerry Coyne so that you can continue to enjoy his blog?

    I don’t recall saying that. Either I’m becoming forgetful or you are making things up (or both).

  160. hotshoe says

    Ahahaha, thanks. I wasn’t sure about you dude, but now I can be. According to you, we’re to tolerate racism, imperialism, sexism, and numerous other social ills? Reconsider your life

    Fuck you, you lying little piece of shit.

  161. Forbidden Snowflake says

    I don’t recall saying that.

    So what did you mean by comment #156? “I like Jerry so I don’t like to see him criticized”? Do clarify.

  163. drosera says

    So what did you mean by comment #156? “I like Jerry so I don’t like to see him criticized”? Do clarify.

    You can criticise anybody you want. Slandering is something else. Some people here don’t know the difference.

  164. julian says

    Slandering is something else and I doubt you’d be able to provide any coherent definition, drosera.

  165. julian says

    Reading over this thread, shouldn’t half this shit be in the Thunderdome and not a normal post?

  166. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Slandering is something else. Some people here don’t know the difference.

    Slander is telling deliberate lies about somebody to demean their reputation. Insults are giving opinions about somebody. You don’t know the difference drosera, not us. People here have been giving their opinions, and backing it up with evidence, unlike you. Show the untruths, or shut the fuck up. Opinion is protected speech.

  167. drosera says

    Show the untruths, or shut the fuck up.

    In civilised countries people don’t have to prove their innocence when they are being slandered. Only devious little rats like you can insist on a reversal of the burden of proof.

  168. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    In civilised countries people don’t have to prove their innocence when they are being slandered.

    They can sue in civil court, where the burden of evidence is upon them to demonstrate that what was said was a lie. Why do you keep lying to yourself, and then lie to us? You need be less of a hero-worshipper at all costs, and more of a realist. The truth is always a defense in such cases. You can’t slander someone if you tell the truth.

  169. Amphiox says

    drosera, as usual, is lying.

    HE is making the accusation that someone is slandering. The burden of evidence is on HIM, the accuser. The presumption of innocence is on the person being ACCUSED of slander.

    And the hypocrite has the nerve to even think about bringing up the subject of reversal of the burden of proof.

  170. drosera says

    They can sue in civil court, where the burden of evidence is upon them to demonstrate that what was said was a lie.

    Hmm. So when I accuse you of being a child molester, you have to prove that you are innocent? Let me know in which country you live, so that I can avoid it.

    I hope you are not a lawyer but just a dumb blog commenter.

  171. drosera says

    drosera, as usual, is lying.

    HE is making the accusation that someone is slandering. The burden of evidence is on HIM, the accuser. The presumption of innocence is on the person being ACCUSED of slander.

    And the hypocrite has the nerve to even think about bringing up the subject of reversal of the burden of proof.

    So when I call you a child molester and you say that I am slandering you, people should presume that I am innocent of slander?

    Wow, the zombies are not becoming any smarter today.

  173. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I hope you are not a lawyer but just a dumb blog commenter.

    No, you looked in the mirror. You are one dumb blog commenter.

    Again, where is the slander? Inslults are not slander, they are opinion/commentary. Protected speech. Put up or shut the fuck up on where is the slander. Or, do you know you have nothing but your OPINION, and must be vague to prevent being shown to be a liar and bullshitter?

  174. drosera says

    Alright, a practical example then. From the very first comment:

    Richard Dawkins may be an atheist, but he’s a highly religious man who rejects reason in favor of faith as evidenced by his virulent sexism.

    Stated without any supporting evidence. Clearly a case of slander. Is Dawkins (or am I) now to prove that he isn’t a ‘highly religious man’ and a ‘virulent sexist’? How could he even do that?

    You folks are straight from some story of Kafka.

  175. says

    Except that I like reading Jerry Coyne’s website, so it annoys me when he is apparently being set up by people like you

    Your enjoyment of someone’s blog gives you no insight into other people’s reasons for a lack of interest in hearing their views. You’re ignorant about background information here, and I again recommend that you refrain from responding to my posts.

  176. drosera says

    A few years ago Pharyngula was my favourite web site. It’s terribly sad that it has become such a run-down wasteland.

    I leave you to it.

  177. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Stated without any supporting evidence. Clearly a case of slander.

    It doesn’t have to be supported except in court. And RD does have a problem with sexism as has beren shown above. He’s not a raging misogynist, just a clueless privileged male, typical of his age group.
    Not slander, some truthfulness, try again until you get to a blatant lie.

  178. nms says

    You folks are straight from some story of Kafka.

    You seem to be suggesting that, as an author, Kafka was both unimaginative and unambitious. This is slander (apparently) and I demand that you withdraw it immediately (because apparently I can do that).

  179. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    It’s terribly sad that it has become such a run-down wasteland.

    You look in the mirror. You look at how many inane posts you made defending someone who could defend theemselves. You are the one bringing down the level of discourse by your mindless reposting of the same drivel in an attempt to cow and stop the discourse you didn’t like.

  180. hotshoe says

    Fuck you, you lying little piece of shit.

    If that’s what it takes to sleep at night, after what you said.

    If you mean you need to fuck yourself so you can sleep at night – fine, go for it. But don’t ask me to help. I wouldn’t touch you for the world. If you mean I should have problems sleeping at night because I should feel troubled about anything I’ve said here – then fuck you again, you despicable shit.

    Tell whatever lies you want about what I’ve said. I won’t respond to you again. You’re a waste of oxygen.

  182. reinisivanovs says

    People whose lifespans don’t include times when “civilized” countries forcefully castrated gays, practiced racial segregation and forbade women to vote are privileged (i.e., younger people are more empowered by the fruits of progress to hold more accurate views in complex areas like social justice), so Dawkin’s age should be a valid reason to cut him some slack.

    Another reason for cutting some slack is that Dawkins with his works is a champion of critical thinking and enlightenment ideals like humanism on a historical scale, while the scale of the “sexist noises” is limited to a some postings that even the loudest critics have trouble remembering (he didn’t “pretend to be a muslim woman from the Middle East”). It would also help taking the critics more seriously if the problems with Dawkins would be better documented than impromptu lists buried in comment threads.

    One more reason to treat Dawkins less severely than has been exhibited here is that human minds are more like complex populations than unified entities, so this is a false dichotomy:

    The decision to be skeptical about one’s “equal” footing is no different than being skeptical about one’s religion. You either dispense with the mental gymnastics or embrace them. A, or not-A.

    The poster boy for compartmentalization is Ken Miller who is a religious (Roman Catholic even) anti-creationist. Dawkins himself has some memorable writing about the essentialist, complexity avoiding, pidgeonholing tendencies of our thinking in The Blind Watchmaker.

    The “A, or not-A” phrasing is singularily Ayn Randian as well, but I guess it sounded smarter than “black or white”. Sorry, a little dig there, but it leads into this: PZ has posted a video of Dawkins, and that means PZ must think favorably of Dawkins to some notable degree; but if Dawkins deserves labels like “authoritarian pig” and “virulent misogynist”, then how can PZ not be a misogynist for promoting Dawkins in the black-and-white, “A, or not-A” view? People hating on Dawkins so much should probably also boycott Pharnygula to be consistent.

  183. says

    People whose lifespans don’t include times when “civilized” countries forcefully castrated gays, practiced racial segregation and forbade women to vote are privileged

    Excuse me while I take a laugh. There is such a thing about ageism, but not in terms of holding the elderly to a standard of moving with the rest of us on social issues.

    And burn in hell for trying to appropriate such a thing as privilege.

    Another reason for cutting some slack is that Dawkins with his works is a champion of critical thinking and enlightenment ideals like humanism on a historical scale, while the scale of the “sexist noises” is limited to a some postings that even the loudest critics have trouble remembering

    I have trouble remembering a lot of things, so if you’d like to try to use that, feel free, but it’ll mean that the sunni/shia split isn’t important, that Merika’s best science communicators aren’t important, and that the exact workings of evolutionary theory aren’t important…

    Fact of the matter is, he’s been pretty loud and clear in opposing efforts to end sexism, and you asshats keep giving him a fucking pass on it.

    BTW, time machine plox. I’d love tos ee what 30 years from now looks like, if you are so confident on the ‘historical scale’. Also, you don’t really understand what matters on the ‘historical scale’ if you’re going to put it on one dude.

    Then how can PZ not be a misogynist for promoting Dawkins in the black-and-white, “A, or not-A” view?

    PZ is, on the matter of Dawkins, but not for promoting his atheist talk. It’s for fawning over his sexist shit when Dawkins comes to spill it here. He is a shit ton nicer to Dawkins when DAwkins is being a sexist ass than he is to pretty much any other sexist ass. And in context, that makes that niceness a sexist act. Unlike Dawkins, he doesn’t make a fucking habit of being a sexist.

    Again, for whining about how we’re being ‘black and white’, it is quite simple to accept that on atheism, and against predominantly Christian forms of theism, Dawkins is generally on the ball even while he fails horrendously on most other counts. That isn’t ‘black and white’, it’s just not valuing atheism over everything else, as you insist we must.

    And for various gods’ sakes, not everyone commented on DAwkins’ sexism immediately. I could only be fucked to comment when people decided to go full blown apologist for his ass.

    If you mean you need to fuck yourself so you can sleep at night – fine, go for it.

    Yeah yeah, save it for any judge you think is coming, asshat. Some of us aren’t here for cookies; you defended Dawkins, stand by it.