• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

American Humanist Association withdraws Richard Dawkins' Humanist Of The Year award

let's be honest: Dawkins has proven to be an Alpha Hotel on many occasions.
I never thought he was the best spokesmen for a skeptical position on religion; i never bought into the personality cult. And I though his being rude and insulting to religious beleivers..which he often was..was not the best way to approach them.
 
Last edited:
When I think of the marginalized groups he insults, my first thought is "Catholics".


So, this group is rescinding an award given 25 years ago? Because? Never mind.

I suppose the membership of the committee that makes the awards has changed a bit over the last quarter century. It's good to know that the current generation will not hesitate to correct the sins of those who came before.
 
Olmstead said:
I've re-read that part three times, and I still don't get it. Either Dawkins disparaged transgender identity by implying it's fradulent, or he disparaged Black identity by implying White people can simply assume it. He can't have done both in the same argument.

I'm going to call this Schrodinger's Insult.
Click to expand...

IMO the problem is there two groups who’s ideas on self identification are not compatible and both feel there is a threat of discrimination against them if their own views are not upheld. Dawkins is seeking to discuss this discrepancy, while his critics don’t want to think about it because whatever conclusion you come to one group would feel discriminated against.

I think Dawkins is in the right here. The best thing to do is to discuss the discrepancy and either come to a more consistent conclusion or gain a better understanding of why one case differs from the other. Hiding from it because you don't want to deal with the cognitive dissonance isn't the way to go.
 
lomiller said:
IMO the problem is there two groups who’s ideas on self identification are not compatible and both feel there is a threat of discrimination against them if their own views are not upheld. Dawkins is seeking to discuss this discrepancy, while his critics don’t want to think about it because whatever conclusion you come to one group would feel discriminated against.

I think Dawkins is in the right here. The best thing to do is to discuss the discrepancy and either come to a more consistent conclusion or gain a better understanding of why one case differs from the other. Hiding from it because you don't want to deal with the cognitive dissonance isn't the way to go.
Click to expand...

100%, and I am firmly with Dawkins here as well!

There is a very big difference between holding and espousing anti-trans views, and what Dawkins has said, which is perfectly acceptable in skepticism. He has pointed out that even discussion of the matter is frowned upon.... i.e. highlighted their hypocrisy. Now, you're not even allowed to question or debate this issue because a small number of snowflakes among that community might be offended.

I have for some time suspected that the AHA (and the RFKHR) which were originally politically neutral have been slowly veering towards left wing, liberalism. Both have diminished in my estimation and by doing what they have done, and they have made their awards worthless (and this is coming from my liberal atheist perspective).

JK Rowling handed her award back after she was criticised for having the temerity to express her opinion... Dawkins should make a public show of taking his back to them, and telling them to shove it where the sun don't shine.
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
IMO the problem is there two groups who’s ideas on self identification are not compatible and both feel there is a threat of discrimination against them if their own views are not upheld. Dawkins is seeking to discuss this discrepancy, while his critics don’t want to think about it because whatever conclusion you come to one group would feel discriminated against.
I think Dawkins is in the right here. The best thing to do is to discuss the discrepancy and either come to a more consistent conclusion or gain a better understanding of why one case differs from the other. Hiding from it because you don't want to deal with the cognitive dissonance isn't the way to go.
Click to expand...

Obviously. To any thinking person up to around five years ago.
 
smartcooky said:
I have for some time suspected that the AHA (and the RFKHR) which were originally politically neutral have been slowly veering towards left wing, liberalism.
Click to expand...

Conquest's 2nd law of politics: Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.
 
Who cares?

thum_669625441ec7d07cb7.jpg
 
lomiller said:
IMO the problem is there two groups who’s ideas on self identification are not compatible and both feel there is a threat of discrimination against them if their own views are not upheld. Dawkins is seeking to discuss this discrepancy, while his critics don’t want to think about it because whatever conclusion you come to one group would feel discriminated against.

I think Dawkins is in the right here. The best thing to do is to discuss the discrepancy and either come to a more consistent conclusion or gain a better understanding of why one case differs from the other. Hiding from it because you don't want to deal with the cognitive dissonance isn't the way to go.
Click to expand...

These elements of identity have drastically different sources, mechanisms, histories, and impacts. There is no reason to presuppose they behave the same any more than there is to presuppose that because I can be arrested for identifying myself as a police officer that I can be arrested for identifying as a Twilight fan.

His question comes off as a very silly 'push-pole' going for the 'why don't you and them fight' that people in those groups are highly unlikely to fall for.
 
tyr_13 said:
These elements of identity have drastically different sources, mechanisms, histories, and impacts. There is no reason to presuppose they behave the same any more than there is to presuppose that because I can be arrested for identifying myself as a police officer that I can be arrested for identifying as a Twilight fan.

His question comes off as a very silly 'push-pole' going for the 'why don't you and them fight' that people in those groups are highly unlikely to fall for.
Click to expand...

But they both use the word identity. Therefore they must be consistent like when I use the word bonnet I must mean a head dressing, even if I'm talking about a used MG.
 
Dr. Keith said:
But they both use the word identity. Therefore they must be consistent like when I use the word bonnet I must mean a head dressing, even if I'm talking about a used MG.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't my car float like a boat? They're both vehicles.
 
lomiller said:
IMO the problem is there two groups who’s ideas on self identification are not compatible and both feel there is a threat of discrimination against them if their own views are not upheld. Dawkins is seeking to discuss this discrepancy, while his critics don’t want to think about it because whatever conclusion you come to one group would feel discriminated against.

I think Dawkins is in the right here. The best thing to do is to discuss the discrepancy and either come to a more consistent conclusion or gain a better understanding of why one case differs from the other. Hiding from it because you don't want to deal with the cognitive dissonance isn't the way to go.
Click to expand...

QED
 
lomiller said:
IMO the problem is there two groups who’s ideas on self identification are not compatible and both feel there is a threat of discrimination against them if their own views are not upheld. Dawkins is seeking to discuss this discrepancy, while his critics don’t want to think about it because whatever conclusion you come to one group would feel discriminated against.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true. I think Dawkins is now disingenuously striving to frame it that way - "just asking questions" - now that he has received so much negative blowback from it; but his tweet certainly seemed to me to simply be snarking on the fact that the discrepancy exists rather than some kind of genuine call for an "academic discussion" about it; in fact I find the latter interpretation to be rather laughable considering the context, despite the willingness of Dawkins' fans to seize upon it.
 
Checkmite said:
I don't think that's true. I think Dawkins is now disingenuously striving to frame it that way - "just asking questions" - now that he has received so much negative blowback from it; but his tweet certainly seemed to me to simply be snarking on the fact that the discrepancy exists rather than some kind of genuine call for an "academic discussion" about it; in fact I find the latter interpretation to be rather laughable considering the context, despite the willingness of Dawkins' fans to seize upon it.
Click to expand...

If only he knew people who organised public debates and if only he knew academics who are willing to participate in public debates then he could actually have seen about enabling such a debate. Unfortunately public speaking is something wholly foreign to him, and so all he could do is post the word "discuss" on twitter.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
You think it's likely that the American Humanist Association took away a 25 year old award from one of the biggest public figures of atheism because a thread here is on moderated status? Seriously?
Click to expand...
Edited by Agatha: 
Do not discuss matters of forum moderation outside FMF
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Checkmite said:
I don't think that's true. I think Dawkins is now disingenuously striving to frame it that way - "just asking questions" - now that he has received so much negative blowback from it; but his tweet certainly seemed to me to simply be snarking on the fact that the discrepancy exists rather than some kind of genuine call for an "academic discussion" about it; in fact I find the latter interpretation to be rather laughable considering the context, despite the willingness of Dawkins' fans to seize upon it.
Click to expand...


If you know anything at all about Richard Dawkins you would know that he always frames things this way. He has never ever been shy of discussing sensitive issues openly and frankly... i.e. telling it like it is.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
If you know anything at all about Richard Dawkins you would know that he always frames things this way. He has never ever been shy of discussing sensitive issues openly and frankly... i.e. telling it like it is.
Click to expand...

I'm told by his fans that this was also one of Donald Trump's most endearing qualities.

But the problem is, aside from giving a command to "discuss", Dawkins didn't state a position at all, let alone "openly and frankly". Hence why his reaction to the resulting criticism comes off as disingenuous.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
I'm told by his fans that this was also one of Donald Trump's most endearing qualities
Click to expand...

No, there is no comparison

Dawkins does this in an enabling, facilitating manner, to allow and encourage frank and honest discussion.

Trump does it in a way that tries to shut down opposing opinions and ideas because he proclaims to know everything, and therefore anyone who disagrees with him is wrong and must be silenced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom