For your own safety and wellbeing.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Comments

[nutmeg-44.livejournal.com]

Nice and simple. Thanks for this.

[fieryphoenix.livejournal.com]

Yes yes YES.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Good rule of thumb.

[garote]

Do what you like. I found "The God Delusion" to be quite interesting.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Have you seen his twitter account?

Dude's a racist and very, deeply, extremely stupid person. He is to atheism as Ron Paul is to war: Right on this one very specific issue for reasons that have to, given his other positions, be suspect. And UNBELIEVABLY racist on everything, so even him being right on one thing shouldn't be mistaken for him being right on anything in general.

[garote]

You are so going to have to explain that "racism" thing.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

.... have you not seen any of his comments on Muslims or anyone he thinks (by virtue of non-white skin) might be Muslim?

(If you're going to make the "Islam is not a race therefore irrational hatred of Muslims and anyone non-white who might 'look like a Muslim' is just idiotic bigotry, not racism" argument, let me just stop you right here. (https://muslimreverie.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/debunking-the-islam-is-not-a-race-argument/) If you weren't going to do that and just missed all of Dawkins' pantswetting terror and demands that non-white people be stopped and frisked so he, a white man, doesn't have to be? That link is still a good read although it's not as immediately pertinent.)

[garote]

Yeah uh, your "stop you right there" article is a really rampant case of special pleading, that wants to have its cake and eat it too. For example, it claims that wanting to liberate Muslim women who've been denied education their entire lives is not an example of feminism, but instead an example of colonialism, because "the white man" is coming in with the attitude that the "savages" need their women rescued. That's practically The Wookie Defense right there.

If you want to play word-gotcha, by claiming the label "racist" because "racism is bad mmmkay", then so be it. I'll go along with you. Richard Dawkins is totally racist against Islam. He's also totally racist against Christianity, in fact he's said way, way more inflammatory things about Christianity than about Islam, but I guess that's not the topic here, because (insert some argument about how Islam is a race and Christianity is not because of stereotypes about appearance or something).

But tell me about this stop-and-frisk thing. I googled it for a while and didn't come up with anything, so perhaps I'm missing the rage party here.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

If you want to play word-gotcha, by claiming the label "racist" because "racism is bad mmmkay"

No, I call Dawkins racist because his bigotry against Muslims specifically carries with it a racial component.

He's also totally racist against Christianity,

Yeah, no, his objections to Christianity do *not* share the same racist component, and while he's said many inflammatory things about Christianity, he doesn't usually attack Islam, he attacks Muslims.

insert some argument about how Islam is a race and Christianity is not because of stereotypes about appearance or something

Islam is not a race. Western Islamophobia is almost always racist. Dawkins regularly says racist (and sexist, and generally stupid) things when indulging his irrational Islamophobia. Do you see the distinction there?

tell me about this stop-and-frisk thing.

Dawkins complains bitterly about airline security being concerned about him, a white man, instead of simply checking THOSE people, you know, the ones who aren't white men and thus might actually be a security threat. He's not nearly as stupid about it as, say, Sam Harris, but he's never been subtle.

[garote]

"... his bigotry against Muslims specifically carries with it a racial component."

Explain how. That is, what does he, Richard Dawkins, say about Muslims that makes his statements racist rather than bigoted.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Are we playing the Friendly Sealion Game? That's a boring and stupid game and I'm not interested in playing it with a dawkbro.

Start here. (http://bfy.tw/1vNl)

[garote]

LOL. "Dawkbro." Haven't heard that one before Good one, brah.

From the first page of hits:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/09/an-old-white-racist-famed-atheist-richard-dawkins-spawns-furor-over-islam-tweet/

Quoting Dawkins directly: “Am I surprised? Only at the number of people who seem to think Islam is a race, rather than a religion. I regard that view as racist. Anything you can convert to, or convert from, is NOT a race.”

Also from the first page:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/20/islam-race-richard-dawkins

Nesrine Mailk writes: "Equally, it is disingenuous to claim that Islam has no colour. There is actually quite a strong racial dimension to Islamophobia. Muslims in the UK are predominantly brown, Asian or Arab, and there have been instances where non-Muslims from Asian communities have been lumped together with Muslims and discriminated against."

This is exactly what I was referring to two messages up, about stereotypes based on appearance.

Yes, there are definitely plenty of dumbasses who conflate Islam with brown people, and with a certain mode of dress. They're completely wrong in the first case, and almost completely wrong in the second (since the abaya and the hijab are generally considered Islamic clothing). But it's pretty obvious that Dawkins thinks these people are racists, as per the above direct quote.

Your own first page of google hits has let you down. Islamabro. (Or whatever the equivalent pejorative should be, in trade for yours.)

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

You misunderstand.

You claim to have never previously heard of criticism of Dawkins as "racist and bigoted" instead of just "bigoted". This makes you either ignorant of the state of the conversation, or disingenuous.

On the assumption that you really didn't know why "Dawkins says racist things regularly" was a thing, I sent you to Google. I even made sure the first page included apologists (including the man himself!) as well as critics. Because if you really don't know what racist things Dawkins has said and why people describe them that way, you're not equipped to have this conversation and you need to catch up on the issue *first*, before coming back to discuss it.

"there have been instances where non-Muslims from Asian communities have been lumped together with Muslims and discriminated against."

Yes, like the number of times Sikhs have been attacked by people screaming anti-muslim slurs. This is another example of how islamophobia is most often racist. You can also get some really *fascinating* reactions from "Islam isn't a race so I'm not racist" sorts by listening to them talk about taqiyya.

it's pretty obvious that Dawkins thinks these people are racists, as per the above direct quote.

And yet *he keeps doing it himself*. Dawkins also says he believes women are people deserving of respect and equal treatment, and then defends Tim Hunt's statement and promotes Christina Hoff Summers. It's almost like he claims one thing and then does another, regularly.

And if you really haven't heard "Dawkbro" as a term before? You're out of touch with the state of the discussion and need to catch up because you can meaningfully participate.

Islamabro. (Or whatever the equivalent pejorative should be, in trade for yours.)

That one doesn't really work, since I'm fairly vocally atheist myself.
Agreeing with Dawkins about God is, again, like agreeing with Ron Paul about war: He's right on one thing but *wow* he's wrong about so much else and says a lot of racist things.

(Oh, and the fact that of the four hundred thousand results, you pulled out *The Blaze* as an example of one you considered credible and wanted to cite? That's not a good look.)

[garote]

Not disingenuous, I assure you. Just ignorant of "the state of the conversation", whatever that means. And a bit incredulous, having read every book he's published cover-to-cover, and a number he's only edited such as The Oxford Book Of Modern Science Writing.

I've never heard of Christina Hoff Summers, but a quick read of her Wikipedia page leads me to think I would agree with her ideas in general. Feminism doesn't have to be defined in terms of an opposition to patriarchy. It can, and should, be defined independent of it.

Also, having not heard of the term "Dawkbro" is hardly a disqualification for having a discussion about Richard Dawkins, or religion, or feminism, or racism. I'm sure you haven't heard of the term "forkboy", but my friends and I used it for decades to describe white, sexist, suburban bullies in my neighborhood growing up. I don't think that disqualifies you from a discussion about white, sexist, suburban bullies. In general, neither you, nor I, are group-sanctioned gatekeepers for who can take part in any discussion.

Sorry, The Blaze was on the first page. I assume you knew that since you vetted the search yourself. For what it's worth, I don't consider the "muslimreverie" blog you quoted as a source of credible journalism, based on that ridiculous article you referenced on it.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

a bit incredulous, having read every book he's published cover-to-cover, and a number he's only edited such as The Oxford Book Of Modern Science Writing.

Yeah, I get that. A good friend of mine is gay and was a big fan of Adam Baldwin for a long time, because he had no idea what Adam Baldwin was like in real life. I thought Dawkins was smart based on his books, and then his public statements corrected that.

I've never heard of Christina Hoff Summers, but a quick read of her Wikipedia page leads me to think I would agree with her ideas in general.

Sommers is aggressively antifeminist, and an eager, active participant in misogynist harassment online.

Sorry, The Blaze was on the first page. I assume you knew that since you vetted the search yourself.

There's always stupid things on google results. The catch is being able to read for context and figure out which of them are stupid.

For what it's worth, I don't consider the "muslimreverie" blog you quoted as a source of credible journalism, based on that ridiculous article you referenced on it.

Who claimed it was "journalism"? It's a blog.

[garote]

Hah! Nobody said it was journalism. True enough. And yes, reading for context is important. The Blaze was quoting Richard Dawkins directly, in an email he wrote to The Guardian. What are you blaming The Blaze for in this particular case?

I still think Dawkins is smart based on his books. Very smart, in fact. I also feel some pity for him because he made a choice, a long time ago, to get involved in religious politics by declaring himself publicly atheist and encouraging science and religion to butt heads, which got a lot bigger and messier than he understood at the time and understands - and can cope with - now. Now he is being pursued - day and night - by a mob of people who feel attacked by his words and are interested in nothing more than attacking back. Maybe he saw it coming, maybe not. I don't think he did. Perhaps he should have, knowing how capricious religioun and politics are.

Pity aside, I just can't agree with "Dude's a racist and very, deeply, extremely stupid person." I think "racist" is a term his attackers use to deliberately force him into a category that he has not placed himself in. Religion is not the same as race. Being Chinese is not the same as being Buddhist. Et cetera.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I don't trust The Blaze to provide accurate quotes. I trust them further than Breitbart or The Daily Mail, but only just barely. The Blaze is sometimes telling the truth - but I can only tell that when a *reliable* source confirms it, so why use The Blaze in the first place?

I think "racist" is a term his attackers use to deliberately force him into a category that he has not placed himself in

Klan members insist they're not racist. Someone does not have to proclaim they're racist to say racist things, and denying racism doesn't make the things you say not racist.

But: would you agree that he's regularly Islamophobic and both uncritical and credulous about sources as long as they paint Muslims badly? If so, then we're at the same point modulo a slight case of me believing most islamophobia is racist and Dawkins' islamophobia specifically is racist and you disagreeing on that specific point.

[garote]

Yeah I think we agree a lot more than we disagree. I don't accept the label of racist, but I do accept the label of Islamophobe, for Dawkins.

On the other hand, given his debate history, he has already had a lot more direct contact with Islamic scholars than I'll ever have in my lifetime. So I'll qualify that label by saying that he may actually believe he has plenty of authority to comment, without actually knowing the "ground truth" of Islamic matters.

In fact, I can see an endless dialogue with top Islamic scholars painting the picture that Islam is anti-democratic, deeply suspicious of all non-Muslims, and egregiously, irretrievably sexist and homophobic. Not to mention thoroughly irrational, since these scholars often freely mix historical and scientific fact with scripture, as though they were interchangeable. A tactic that someone like Dawkins must find absolutely enraging.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Curiously Dawkins has been citing Breitbart:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/09/21/my-brain-just-exploded/

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

He's so great. I've always liked that his idiot blockquotes are styled in Comic Sans.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I knew about that. See also "uncritical and credulous".

The man's brain shuts off as soon as he's asked to consider anyone who isn't just like him - old, white, male, English-as-first-language, cultural Christian - as fully human.

[phildegrave]

Ha! "the Shyamalan-like shocking twist"!

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I'd not heard of Dawkbro, because most people I know who would be supportive of his ideas have realised he is a *really* poor philosopher.

[garote]

"Dawkins complains bitterly about airline security being concerned about him, a white man ..."

Okay, now that I know it's about airline security and not just "stop and frisk" laws, I've got some google hits. They're about him being pissed that an airline confiscated one of his items, and him calling it "security theater". If there's racism against "those people" here, I'm going to need you to point it out for me. Or is there a different brouhaha I'm missing?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Did you not read *why* Dawkins thought it was absurd to stop him and confiscate his honey, or what he said about who *should* be stopped and searched?

At this point I get the feeling you're aggressively avoiding examining the pattern, and declaring that there is no forest, and there can't be a forest, because if there was a forest you'd be able to see it but there's all those thousands of trees where the forest would be if only there was a forest, which there isn't.

[garote]

Go ahead and find me the direct quote from Dawkins where he explains who should be stopped and searched. I assume you'll link to his "if I ruled the world" editorial where he gives the inane example of a woman with "brazenly" visible face and hair, and a huge black beard. This is an example, I think, of his usual foot-in-mouth disease behavior, where he doesn't think entirely through how his words will be interpreted by his critics. What's clear in it is that he hates airline security theatre, and hates all the little rules everyone is subject to, and would rather have officials trained to use their discretion rather than the rules. What he doesn't realize is that if the average UK citizen were asked to "use their discretion" they might actually target the fellow with the Koran and the big black beard. Because there's a fair chance that the average UK citizen is racist against the Muslim appearance. That's ironic, and Dawkins deserves to take plenty of lumps for using such an inflammatory example. Which he does - plenty of them indeed - from people online.

(As an aside: I'm an American, so I'm actually not in favor of this "increased discretion", I'm in favor of testing the rules, then stripping down the ones that don't work, or changing them to something that's been tested to work. Americans are, in general, very law-abiding and get obsessive about rules, while also being quite eager to argue for changes to them.)

When I search for "debate" about this and other things he's said online, most of what I see is social justice warriors constructing artificial context around tweets in order to fuel a sense of divisive outrage based on buzzwords like "racist" and "brown people" and "bigot" and so on. It's not a new phenomenon. I've seen clouds of online content gather around celebrities with controversial opinions since well before there was an internet linking all the online content together. (Read any usenet archive on politics, atheism, or feminism, for example.) And lots of the droplets in those clouds are people who are keen to draw attention to themselves by being outraged, rather than adding to the progressive, non-divisive space that they ostensibly crave.

(As another aside, in response to their critics, a new term has been coined called "tone policing", which is basically saying, "If you critique my outrage by appealing for either politeness or respect, you are an apologist for my oppressors." Which I would find amusing if it wasn't so tragic, since it's primary effect is to further balkanize and divide people by willfully ceding any middle ground.)

These people are your trees. Yeah, they make a pretty fine forest, in territory that's all their own. But don't mistake that forest for Richard Dawkins. That forest is its own ugly thing.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

I take it you never read his "Dear Muslima" letter.
I also guess you've never seen his support for Neo-Nazi Geert Wilders (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDms-nP2E90&feature=youtu.be&t=43s). Or knew that he does not consider Muslims to be good choices as journalists. (https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/325957740835004416)
But frankly, I despise him more for Elevatorgate and his support of "mild paedophilia not being so bad".

[garote]

Yeah, I came across that woman-accosted-in-an-elevator letter he wrote, while searching for info on his anti-Islam statements, and hoooo boy, that's a huge steaming turd. I get the intent of the piece - that we should be paying more attention to human rights violations than to tense encounters in elevators - but he must have written that when he was drunk and angry, because it only takes a few seconds of sober thought to realize that it'll go down terribly in any arena, and especially online. And on top of that, he actually named the person involved. UGH.

The fact that he apologized for it later, in an odd elliptical fashion, barely atones for it.

[garote]

Incidentally, when you say "he does not consider Muslims to be good choices as journalists" and then link to a tweet about Mehdi Hasan, you might be missing some context. Mehdi Hasan and Richard Dawkins have been beefing for quite a while leading up to that.

Here's Hasan referring to Dawkins directly, four years earlier:

"The Quranic phrase "people of no intelligence" simply and narrowly refers to the fact that Muslims regard their views on God as the only intellectually tenable position, just as atheists (like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris) regard believers as fundamentally irrational and, even, mentally deficient. As for the metaphorical use of the word "cattle", that has no more pejorative charge than does the word "sheep" when applied by atheists to religious believers."

That is a clarification of a statement he made earlier, but its intention is pretty clear, with or without the surrounding context. He is invoking the Quran to declare that Muslims are exactly as intolerant as the most strident of atheists, and that they refer to non-believers with as much derision as atheists would use the term "sheep". (If you think that's an unfair summary, I'm open to discuss that, though.)

I don't think this disqualifies him from being a journalist. But I can see how it would disqualify him in Dawkins' view. Dawkins wants everyone who claims affiliation with a religion to be held accountable for every questionable idea espoused in the religion's inspirational texts, as though being Christian means you _must_, for example, believe that Genesis is literally true. It's a kind of reversed all-true-Scotsmen fallacy. I don't think such an attitude is very fair: Most people are born into a religion and learn how they fit into its framework as they go, accepting what feels right and ignoring or rationalizing away what they don't. So they have an inbuilt understanding that the inspirational text is just that: Inspirational. Not literal. Not a math or science book; and not meant to be treated that way. So Dawkins is making a very tone-deaf argument.

On the other hand, Mehdi Hasan has made his own attitude and interpretation quite clear. If he believes that the road to being a true Muslim is to be as steadfast as Dawkins is with regards to God - perhaps even to the point of using the word "bigoted" - well... I don't like him very much either.

No one wins in a Twitter war :D

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

He's also incredibly clueless on certain issues of social justice (no big deal in and of itself) but tends to open his mouth and spew his ignorance all over people only to double-down and get passive-aggressive whenever people tell him he's just being wrong (and kind of hurtful) about it. Any time he speaks about feminism, expect a huge clusterfuck, followed months later by a grudging faux "apology."

[garote]

Oh I'll fully accept the clusterfuck tendency. He gets himself into situations like that over and over again. It's interesting that the fellow who invented the concept of a "meme" is so often fouled up by his own.

But on the other hand, maybe he aims to be controversial. For example, one of his recent zingers on twitter was "Islam needs a feminist revolution. It will be hard. What can we do to help?"

This was attacked for at least a dozen reasons, but the one that stood out to me was the reason where he was accused of "mansplaining," because he was - obviously - a man "telling women how to live their lives." Which is true.

It's all a bit shady, what goes on in reference to twitter. Twitter is seemingly made for controversy because it's entirely context-free by default except for one reference point: Who the speaker is. So in, a way it makes perfect sense that he would be attacked based on who he is (a man, and notoriously hard on Islam.)

Nevertheless, I think he's right.

(And no, I don't base that on anything he's said. I base it mostly on my recent reading of three recent autobiographical books, "In the Land of Invisible Women: A Female Doctor's Journey in the Saudi Kingdom", "I Am Nujood, Age 10 and Divorced", and "I Am Malala: The Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban" - which rather gives away its attitude in the title, don't you think?)

But yeah, Dawkins has a serious case of foot-in-mouth disease.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I think this (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/jan/11/a-mission-to-convert/) should be required reading after reading TGD. Even Dennett in his letter defending Dawkins in response to the article says that it's just a popular work, and shouldn't be considered serious thought.

[hindustar.livejournal.com]

LOL, =D

[ponitacupcake.livejournal.com]

#accurate

lol, yeah, what about that, Randi? Wake up, sheeple!