• 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.

Why Dawkins Shouldn't Apologize

Roadtoad

Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Roadtoad
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
15,468
Location
Citrus Heights, CA
Been tracking this for a bit, this spat between Rebecca Watson and Richard Dawkins, and the one thing that keeps coming to mind is why anyone felt any need to comment. I still don't think (a.) Rebecca should have wasted her time mentioning a guy who thought he'd get lucky with a woman who'd had a bit to drink, and (b.) Dawkins should have commented on it at all.

Still, what's done is done, and we're left with a lot of hurt feelings, bruised egos, and the like. Dawkins, in the end, shouldn't apologize. I don't think he'd mean it if he did, so it would have next to zero weight, and while he did have a valid point, (yes, Virginia, there are women in the world suffering far worse), the way he made it was less than I'd have expected from him. It might be better if he simply shut up for a bit and let things blow over on this one.

Just my .02 worth.
 
RT, you know I love you.

But since when is it...okay, acceptable, good logic, etc. to tell someone they don't have a complaint because other people have it worse?

Someone's always got it worse. And someone's always got it better. Now, mind you, here I'm saying this in general. Not this specific incident, though that's where this arose for us to even be commenting on it. But just in general, what kind of logic is that? "Don't be upset about Z, because other people are dealing with Z10."

Yeah, well, with any luck, those people will someday be where we are now, but that won't mean there's not still work to do, or that all complaints have become invalid because...someone else has it worse now.

Agree he needn't apologize. It won't help and sincerity is a question.
 
Roadtoad said:
Been tracking this for a bit, this spat between Rebecca Watson and Richard Dawkins, and the one thing that keeps coming to mind is why anyone felt any need to comment. I still don't think (a.) Rebecca should have wasted her time mentioning a guy who thought he'd get lucky with a woman who'd had a bit to drink, and (b.) Dawkins should have commented on it at all.

Still, what's done is done, and we're left with a lot of hurt feelings, bruised egos, and the like. Dawkins, in the end, shouldn't apologize. I don't think he'd mean it if he did, so it would have next to zero weight, and while he did have a valid point, (yes, Virginia, there are women in the world suffering far worse), the way he made it was less than I'd have expected from him. It might be better if he simply shut up for a bit and let things blow over on this one.

Just my .02 worth.
Click to expand...

Believe me, Dawkins has long since forgotten about this and moved on with his life. I'd be shocked if he was even aware of what was going on.
 
You post a blog publicly, someone criticizes it. That's the price of fame. Even if your blog isn't popular it's accessible by anyone online.

JREF has rules and moderators. So we abide by their rules and post in relative safety.

Even then, someone with a bone to pick can make a site devoted to mocking me and link my JREF posts on their site. Oh well, they're a stupid creepy stalker.

You either make it more private so friends only can read it or don't post at all.

Some things are going to be universally cruel. Death threats and harassment and such. But otherwise, you don't like the criticism, don't post stuff online. Or suck it up.


As much as I hate Rebecca Black's dumb Friday video and feel she can get made fun of all someone wants, some of the nasty "I hope you get anorexia and cut yourself" type comments are uncalled for. Dawkins did nothing of the sort so he owes no apology. He just looks less professional and that's his loss.
 
Last edited:
slingblade said:
RT, you know I love you.

But since when is it...okay, acceptable, good logic, etc. to tell someone they don't have a complaint because other people have it worse?

Someone's always got it worse. And someone's always got it better. Now, mind you, here I'm saying this in general. Not this specific incident, though that's where this arose for us to even be commenting on it. But just in general, what kind of logic is that? "Don't be upset about Z, because other people are dealing with Z10."

Yeah, well, with any luck, those people will someday be where we are now, but that won't mean there's not still work to do, or that all complaints have become invalid because...someone else has it worse now.

Agree he needn't apologize. It won't help and sincerity is a question.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you, Sling. Simply put, it was a creepy thing to do. I think Rebecca made more of the guy hitting on her than she needed to, (personally, I think ignoring him would have done more good, but I'm a guy), but at the same time, Dawkins missed her point. It was four in the morning, she admitted she had been drinking, and this guy was looking to take advantage of it. Not cool.

There's always someone who's got it worse. But why should anyone have it bad at all? Especially when it's preventable.

I'm probably missing something. Then again, when I do, I post here, and someone sets me straight. That helps.

Kahalachan said:
You post a blog publicly, someone criticizes it. That's the price of fame. Even if your blog isn't popular it's accessible by anyone online.

JREF has rules and moderators. So we abide by their rules and post in relative safety.

Even then, someone with a bone to pick can make a site devoted to mocking me and link my JREF posts on their site. Oh well, they're a stupid creepy stalker.

You either make it more private so friends only can read it or don't post at all.

Some things are going to be universally cruel. Death threats and harassment and such. But otherwise, you don't like the criticism, don't post stuff online. Or suck it up.


As much as I hate Rebecca Black's dumb Friday video and feel she can get made fun of all someone wants, some of the nasty "I hope you get anorexia and cut yourself" type comments are uncalled for. Dawkins did nothing of the sort so he owes no apology. He just looks less professional and that's his loss.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Roadtoad said:
How?
Click to expand...
Clearly RandFan is back to his cantankerous self, but aside from the joking, you are wrong. I hate to say go read 60 pages, that's not practical. But let me give you the briefest summary I can of what you are missing here.

Rebecca (RW) -> brief mention in a rambling video what she thought of the elevator guy's (EG) 4am pick up line -> a couple of women bloggers said, sheesh, it was polite enough, what's the big deal -> RW then chose to make a HUGE BIG DEAL on stage at the CFI Student Leadership Conference about women supporting misogyny because they didn't see the EG incident the way RW saw it -> PZ picked up only (IMO) the comments that RW shouldn't have named one of the bloggers: (Steph McGraf) who was at the conference and didn't have equal access to rebut the distorted interpretation of her blog quote that RW put into RW's PowerPoint presentation, PZ missed the real complaint which was RW calling McGraf a misogynist based on ridiculous criteria and elevating the EG incident to sexist objectification -> Richard Dawkins, (RD) posted comment in PZ's blog that the elevator incident was really really minor -> and it was mostly here that the blogosphere EXPLOSION took off.


You and dozens of other people commenting don't seem to have the full picture unless I'm mistaken.

However you are right, RD should not apologize. RW should apologize to the whole skeptic community for attacking people who had different opinons with outrageous ad homs.
 
Last edited:
slingblade said:
RT, you know I love you.

But since when is it...okay, acceptable, good logic, etc. to tell someone they don't have a complaint because other people have it worse?
Click to expand...
It's about as OK as this straw man. ;)

Richard Dawkins, 2 post (post #104)in PZ's blog:
"Did you just make the argument that, since worse things are happening somewhere else, we have no right to try to fix things closer to home?"
No I wasn't making that argument. Here's the argument I was making. The man in the elevator didn't physically touch her, didn't attempt to bar her way out of the elevator, didn't even use foul language at her. He spoke some words to her. Just words. She no doubt replied with words. That was that. Words. Only words, and apparently quite polite words at that....If she felt his behaviour was creepy, that was her privilege,... Rebecca's feeling that the man's proposition was 'creepy' was her own interpretation of his behaviour, presumably not his. She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum. But he does me no physical damage and I simply grin and bear it until either I or he gets out of the elevator. It would be different if he physically attacked me.
Click to expand...
The point is not, it has to be as bad as [X] or don't complain. The point was that RW was blowing the whole thing out of proportion, and she was by the time she was whining at the CFI conference that OMFSM, some women did not see EG the way RW saw him.

That's the issue, Sling, not RW's reaction to EG, but her reaction to those who disagreed with her.
 
Last edited:
Dawkin's point wasn't that Rebecca shouldn't complain. His original statement and followups were directed at the torch carriers' comments in that blog (and PZ, the angry feminist blogger)--who then make skeptics proud by embarking on a character assassination that would make the pious proud. To me it was a John Stewart Daily Show type reality check.

Ugh...I so don't want to get involved with this again.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
That's the issue, Sling, not RW's reaction to EG, but her reaction to those who disagreed with her.
Click to expand...

SG, dear friend, please stop telling me my issues! My issue is exactly what I said it was. You needn't agree, but here we go again, telling me what concerns me isn't actually a concern.

Okay, so it's not a concern for anyone but me. Fine. It's still mine.
 
People get offended for whatever reasons real or imagined. The polite response is to appologize for whatever offended the person. No need to be polite and no need to respond at all. If Rebecca misinterpreted Dawkins or not or over reacted it isn't really important. (Unless there was some legal action taken)
 
Dawkins does seem to be saying it's no big deal and if she was creeped out about the whole thing, that's her problem, not the EG's problem. He even goes as far as equating EG's behavior with chewing gum. I don't know, given the time and the setting, I can certainly see why she might have felt a little threatened by the situation.

Whether Dawkins should apologize or not is a different question. What's done is done, and an apology at this point would be pointless.
 
If western chicks had to wear burqas none of this would have happened; rendering Dawkins' argument untenable.
 
shawmutt said:
Dawkin's point wasn't that Rebecca shouldn't complain. His original statement and followups were directed at the torch carriers' comments in that blog (and PZ, the angry feminist blogger)--who then make skeptics proud by embarking on a character assassination that would make the pious proud. To me it was a John Stewart Daily Show type reality check.

Ugh...I so don't want to get involved with this again.
Click to expand...
This is the thread that wouldn't end
Yes it goes on and on my friend
Somebody started posts in it not knowing what it was
Now they'll continue posts in it forever just because
This is the thread that wouldn't end....
 
slingblade said:
SG, dear friend, please stop telling me my issues! My issue is exactly what I said it was. You needn't agree, but here we go again, telling me what concerns me isn't actually a concern.

Okay, so it's not a concern for anyone but me. Fine. It's still mine.
Click to expand...
Didn't mean to tell you your issue. I said "the issue".

I would be fine with you posting "your issue" but you posted a straw man. What would you like me to do? Ignore that fact? Or something else?

I like you and mean you no ill will. I'm hoping we can amicably disagree here. So please bear with me if I misunderstand your position.
 
Last edited:
Chris L said:
Dawkins does seem to be saying it's no big deal and if she was creeped out about the whole thing, that's her problem, not the EG's problem. He even goes as far as equating EG's behavior with chewing gum. I don't know, given the time and the setting, I can certainly see why she might have felt a little threatened by the situation.

Whether Dawkins should apologize or not is a different question. What's done is done, and an apology at this point would be pointless.
Click to expand...

EG politely hit on RW. What was his crime? RW didn't like it. That's her prerogative. But the idea EG should have known better is disputed by many people who don't think his actions were all that bad. RW claiming EG surely should have known better and his actions were sexist objectification is a stretch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom