How can Dawkins redeem himself?

Perhaps Dawkins can do nothing until he sees a reason why redemption might be necessary. Perhaps if he looks at his act again, in another light, he might see it.

Perhaps others who don't quite understand, either, might understand better under this same light.
 
RemieV said:
Now that we've talked the elevator issue to death, I'm curious about the opinions of those who are angry with Richard Dawkins. What can he do to "redeem himself", in your mind, if anything?
Click to expand...

There is only one way.

Dawkins must redeem himself by entering a 4am elevator with attractive and shapely females ONE DOZEN TIMES, then conversing with them, inviting them to his hotel room, and publicly report all the results.

It's all so very simple.

This will in my view constitute true remorse and actual repentance of all the horrific social lapses and egrarious behavior he exemplifies.
 
The problem with having heroes is that heroes usually turn out to be just human like the rest of us. Asking Dawkins to "redeem" himself is assuming that he feels like he has something to redeem himself about, which I seriously doubt. Boycotting his books and talks is fruitless.

Walter Brennan was a vicious anti-Semite. Should I not enjoy the movie, To Have and Have Not because he plays a lovable character?

I have my own blind spots. I'm betting every single person who reads this post has a blind spot or two. I'm betting Rebecca Watson has her own blind spots. Maybe even, *gasp*, James Randi has one or two.

There are people out there who have no redeeming qualities--Hitler, Bin Laden (maybe--history isn't finished yet), Caligula. For the rest, take the good, point out the bad, and move on with your lives. Dawkins can look at this brouhaha and laugh or think about it or just ignore the whole damn thing. Watson can look at this brouhaha and laugh or think about it or just forget the whole damn thing.

As far as I am concerned, errors on both sides, both sides are human. I'm forgetting the whole damn thing.
 
shemp said:
Your post offends me. If you don't apologize I will post the pictures I have of you frolicking naked in the forest with Bigfoot. I accept your apology in advance.
Click to expand...

It could be worst. You could blackmail her by threatening to post picture of you naked in the wood with bigfoot : the prefect WMD (*).


(*) Weapon of Mind Destruction
 
OK - well...

I agree that Dawkins post was bad. Wrong. Silly. Stupid. Poorly structured logic. A poorly timed attempt to use a bit of sarcasm and levity to get some people to look at a situation in a different light. It was still just a post on an internet forum. And everyone who posts here, has I am sure, written a post they aren't proud of at some point.

Do we expect RD (or RW) to be infallible because they are important people within the circles of skepticism or atheism? No. At least, I do not.

So sure - RD could say 'OK - I screwed up, my bad.' But why should he? He hasn't turned this into a me vs them bunfight. He hasn't suggested he is going to stop buying someone else's books or listening to them (in such a way that implies that anyone who agrees with that point of view should do the same).

If I were in Richard's shoes at this stage, I would be going to TAM to give my presentation, and shake a few hands, sign a few books. I wouldn't engage in any discussion about this incident. I wouldn't participate in any on stage debate about it. This too shall pass. He'll write another book or make another TV show that will be worth talking about, and maybe a few diehards will point out that he made a stupid internet post some time back that implied a lack of sensitivity. Big whoop.

Now if RW reaches out and makes the first move, its a win-win for her.

a) Keeps her in the limelight & demonstrates that she can rein in her 'people' when things get out of hand.
b) Acknowledges that she really wants to 'teach' and help Richard understand what was troubling about his post.
c) Makes it almost impossibile for RD to not respond. Because if he chooses to remain disengaged after RW makes a public attempt to try to reconcile, then he does look like Dick & not Richard.
 
LibraryLady said:
The problem with having heroes is that heroes usually turn out to be just human like the rest of us. Asking Dawkins to "redeem" himself is assuming that he feels like he has something to redeem himself about, which I seriously doubt. Boycotting his books and talks is fruitless.
Click to expand...

Essentially, I feel the same way. I didn't appreciate what he said, but it's not my place to decide he needs to do something about it. He's the only one who can decide that. I did want to express what I thought was wrong about it, but if he never comes to the same conclusion...oh well. Life goes on.
 
slingblade said:
Perhaps Dawkins can do nothing until he sees a reason why redemption might be necessary. Perhaps if he looks at his act again, in another light, he might see it.

Perhaps others who don't quite understand, either, might understand better under this same light.
Click to expand...

I do not think that this will be helpful. The problem is that, in order to hammer into Dawkins' head the reason why redemption is necessary, you and others have misrepresented his position. And his reaction to this will not be, "if you look at it that way, I understand why you are upset." It will be, "why are you looking at it that way when I was making a different point?". The natural tendency for a critical thinker will not be to let a straw man stand, but rather to try and clarify their point. Which then will result in just more of the same-old same-old whereby people talk past each other and become increasingly incensed about it.

Instead, if something is to be done (and I have to admit that Antiquehunter's suspicion about attention-mongering is starting to take root, so that's a big 'if'), it may make more sense to have a meta-discussion about resolving these kinds of conflicts given that misunderstandings are almost inevitable.

Linda
 
Antiquehunter said:
OK - well...

Now if RW reaches out and makes the first move, its a win-win for her.

a) Keeps her in the limelight & demonstrates that she can rein in her 'people' when things get out of hand.
b) Acknowledges that she really wants to 'teach' and help Richard understand what was troubling about his post.
c) Makes it almost impossibile for RD to not respond. Because if he chooses to remain disengaged after RW makes a public attempt to try to reconcile, then he does look like Dick & not Richard.
Click to expand...

I don't get this at all.

From my 30 foot perspective RD got over the issue pretty quickly, and RW was the one still hammering the nails.

RW is playing a victim to a game of words, as long as the game of words "wins" we all lose.
 
Supernovae said:
I don't get this at all.

From my 30 foot perspective RD got over the issue pretty quickly, and RW was the one still hammering the nails.

RW is playing a victim to a game of words, as long as the game of words "wins" we all lose.
Click to expand...

Oh - I agree. I don't think RD is losing any sleep about 'elevatorgate', and nor should he.

My comment was more geared to the OP. I don't think Richard needs to 'redeem himself' nor necessarily 'do' anything. IF someone in all this thinks that they SHOULD do something, I would say it is RW, and those three points are the major reason why.
 
Antiquehunter said:
Oh - I agree. I don't think RD is losing any sleep about 'elevatorgate', and nor should he.

My comment was more geared to the OP. I don't think Richard needs to 'redeem himself' nor necessarily 'do' anything. IF someone in all this thinks that they SHOULD do something, I would say it is RW, and those three points are the major reason why.
Click to expand...

If you step back and look at this circus from a 30 foot view you will see RW doing the play book we all so much hate, creating a "Wedge issue" and "teach the controversy"

That is what discusses me about this entire thing. If RW "wins" as you described, i feel we all lose.
 
vwgub said:
For the new comers on this board(post Rebecca Watson threads) look up her threads. They are full of sexual inuendo and sexual teasing. Including talking about what kind of person she is going to sleep with at TAM.
So I cannot really take her seriously when she talks about being put off by being hit on in an elevator.
Click to expand...

picture.php


http://xkcd.com/67/
 
Supernovae said:
If you step back and look at this circus from a 30 foot view you will see RW doing the play book we all so much hate, creating a "Wedge issue" and "teach the controversy"

That is what discusses me about this entire thing. If RW "wins" as you described, i feel we all lose.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - I'm more motivated to just lay this to rest and move forward. Don't really care if some walks away thinking they 'won' or not.

ETA: I've already won this thread, Darth Rotor said so. And winning the thread is all that really matters. ;)
 
Last edited:
Supernovae said:
If you step back and look at this circus from a 30 foot view you will see RW doing the play book we all so much hate, creating a "Wedge issue" and "teach the controversy"

That is what discusses me about this entire thing. If RW "wins" as you described, i feel we all lose.
Click to expand...

My wife put it "we atheists are becoming our own worst enemies". I agree, people need to get back to reality. I don't think anybody has to apologize. Just get over this crap
 
fls said:
I do not think that this will be helpful. The problem is that, in order to hammer into Dawkins' head the reason why redemption is necessary, you and others have misrepresented his position.
Click to expand...

"Rebecca, your complaint is petty, because other women have it far worse than you in this particular arena. You enjoy many rights and privileges they do not yet enjoy. Think of them and what they struggle with, before you complain."

Is this not his position?
If so, then I have not misrepresented it.
If not, then he has not been clear enough to avoid the appearance of using a fallacious argument.


And his reaction to this will not be, "if you look at it that way, I understand why you are upset." It will be, "why are you looking at it that way when I was making a different point?" The natural tendency for a critical thinker will not be to let a straw man stand, but rather to try and clarify their point.
Click to expand...

If his point was not "Your complaint is petty, because other women have it far worse than you," then what was it? I don't see that I made a strawman. That's what he said, through the passive device of a letter to "Muslima," was it not?

What do you feel is his position, as declared through his letter to "Muslima?"

Perhaps it might have been better to simply and clearly state his position, rather than frame it passively as a letter to an imaginary "person" that might then be misconstrued.

The natural tendency for a critical thinker will not be to let a straw man stand, but rather to try and clarify their point.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he should clarify. But no one can or should decide that for him.

However, it might be hard for him to see that his position is not clear, until someone points out his fallacy.
 
slingblade said:
<snip>
Perhaps it might have been better to simply and clearly state his position, rather than frame it passively as a letter to an imaginary "person" that might then be misconstrued.
Click to expand...

Precisely this. That said, he chose a weird way to make a lame argument. Nothing more. He wasn't expecting the Skepchick inquisition.

Does making such an error really require 'redemption'? Because he is perceived to be a 'leader' within the loose collection of quasi-intellectuals who call ourselves skeptics & atheists we should hold his feet to the fire?

He made a silly comment. By flogging him to death in online fora, he's decided (at least, his silence would indicate) that he's withdrawing from further discussion.

To be honest, all that has happened as a result of this media whoring is that we've lost the opportunity to have an interesting discussion, where perhaps someone with a big brain might have been brought 'round to change their mind on a topic. Always fun to see that.
 
Antiquehunter said:
Precisely this. That said, he chose a weird way to make a lame argument. Nothing more. He wasn't expecting the Skepchick inquisition.

Does making such an error really require 'redemption'? Because he is perceived to be a 'leader' within the loose collection of quasi-intellectuals who call ourselves skeptics & atheists we should hold his feet to the fire?

He made a silly comment. By flogging him to death in online fora, he's decided (at least, his silence would indicate) that he's withdrawing from further discussion.

To be honest, all that has happened as a result of this media whoring is that we've lost the opportunity to have an interesting discussion, where perhaps someone with a big brain might have been brought 'round to change their mind on a topic. Always fun to see that.
Click to expand...

I haven't called for his "redemption." I didn't start this thread.

Clarification would be nice. I rather happen to think his remarks were worse than "silly." I think they had a chilling effect. I can't say if they were intended to, but I think that it could easily be the result. I know I wouldn't bring up such an issue, myself. Not now.
 
slingblade said:
I haven't called for his "redemption." I didn't start this thread.

Clarification would be nice. I rather happen to think his remarks were worse than "silly." I think they had a chilling effect. I can't say if they were intended to, but I think that it could easily be the result. I know I wouldn't bring up such an issue, myself. Not now.
Click to expand...

Not picking on you Sling - I hope you don't feel I am.

I mean, I'd offer to buy you a coffee, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to anymore. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom