Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[zooterkin]

"Richard Dawkins ‏@RichardDawkins Sep 20
If this is true, what was his motive? Whether or not he wanted the police to arrest him, they shouldn’t have done so"

There, if I understand the context, he's responding to the suggestion that Ahmed didn't make a clock from scratch, or a kit, but instead just took the casing off an existing clock. Seems a reasonable question.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

People are noticing that self-proclaimed leaders of atheism are targeting a 14 year old boy — for being enthusiastic about electronics?

Since when did Dawkins ever self proclaim he was a Leader of Atheism?
Others, including Myers before they fell out, may have done that for him.

 

[tsig]

Since when did Dawkins ever self proclaim he was a Leader of Atheism?
Others, including Myers before they fell out, may have done that for him.

First you proclaim leaders, PZ, Dawkins, et. al. then you blast them for not doing what you think leaders would do.

It's even better if you claim you were once a devoted follower but then became disillusioned.

 

[d4m10n]

First you proclaim leaders, PZ, Dawkins, et. al. then you blast them for not doing what you think leaders would do.

No need to proclaim. Just look at who is getting paid to fly around and hang about in speaker’s lounges.

 

[tsig]

No need to proclaim. Just look at who is getting paid to fly around and hang about in speaker’s lounges.

View attachment 33835

Speaking at Skepticon makes you a leader?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Speaking at Skepticon makes you a leader?

Yes, given a small enough universe.

The speaker lineup this year is especially underwhelming.

 

[surreptitious57]

There are no leaders in atheism as such but some are obviously more influential than
others and Dawkins is top of the list in that respect. Ophelia Benson recently mocked
him for being in such a privileged position. However it is a double edged sword since
it means he can just as easily be denigrated for anything which he says as respected
His popularity has reduced within feminist circles after Dear Muslima. And is a shame
since feminism and atheism are not mutually incompatible as such but many wanted
no more to do with him after that. So this is entirely understandable now for a white
privileged man pontificating up on matters feminist from position of ignorance is not
going to end at all well. However he has done much to promote atheism. Particularly
over there across the water so full credit to him for that. But he needs to listen more
And talk less when the subject happens to be feminism and not evolutionary biology

 

[Meed]

First you proclaim leaders, PZ, Dawkins, et. al. then you blast them for not doing what you think leaders would do.

It's even better if you claim you were once a devoted follower but then became disillusioned.

I'm curious when it was that Rrose Selavy proclaimed PZ and Dawkins to be leaders. Or am I misreading your post?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

His popularity has reduced within feminist circles after Dear Muslima.

Warrior.

There is a difference.

 

[pharphis]

There are no leaders in atheism as such but some are obviously more influential than
others and Dawkins is top of the list in that respect. Ophelia Benson recently mocked
him for being in such a privileged position. However it is a double edged sword since
it means he can just as easily be denigrated for anything which he says as respected
His popularity has reduced within feminist circles after Dear Muslima. And is a shame
since feminism and atheism are not mutually incompatible as such but many wanted
no more to do with him after that. So this is entirely understandable now for a white
privileged man pontificating up on matters feminist from position of ignorance is not
going to end at all well. However he has done much to promote atheism. Particularly
over there across the water so full credit to him for that. But he needs to listen more
And talk less when the subject happens to be feminism and not evolutionary biology

I'm not sure what you mean here. Is this one of those "you're not a minority so shut up #cancelcolbert" type of comments or was he ignorant of the specific incident?

 

[surreptitious57]

He was trying to draw some analogy between living as a woman in a Muslim state and being hit upon in
an elevator in the First World. They are not at all the same and they have nothing in common with each
other. Other than they fall under the rather generalised banner of misogyny. By comparing them he was
implying that one was infinitely worse than the other. And that the lesser of the two should therefore not
be considered as serious. This false equivalence fails to address the seriousness of one of these scenarios
in relation to the other. But then why compare two things that have next to nothing in common with each
other anyway ? Any First World problem can be made to appear insignificant when compared to one which
is not First World. A far better comparison would be with women who have no problem with being hit upon
in elevators with women that do and is more valid because the comparitive factor is obviously much greater

 

[d4m10n]

.

Speaking at Skepticon makes you a leader?

.

Yes, given a small enough universe.

.
I don't think there is an authoritative definition of what it means to be a so-called "thought leader" in movement atheism or movement skepticism. I'd say that leaders are those who get to regularly share their ideas, on topics reasonably related to those subjects, with a relatively wide audience. This could be done through videos, books, blogs, live talks, podcasts, standalone art pieces, or what-have-you. Your hardcore professional skeptics and atheists typically do at least two or three of these things.

(Come to think of it, I probably should have thrown institutional support as a factor in there somewhere.)

As to Skepticon in particular, well that's a strange beast. They are making a deliberate effort to bring in speakers we've never seen before this year. Hope to see you there, Scrut.

 

[tsig]

.


.

.
I don't think there is an authoritative definition of what it means to be a so-called "thought leader" in movement atheism or movement skepticism. I'd say that leaders are those who get to regularly share their ideas, on topics reasonably related to those subjects, with a relatively wide audience. This could be done through videos, books, blogs, live talks, podcasts, standalone art pieces, or what-have-you. Your hardcore professional skeptics and atheists typically do at least two or three of these things.

(Come to think of it, I probably should have thrown institutional support as a factor in there somewhere.)

As to Skepticon in particular, well that's a strange beast. They are making a deliberate effort to bring in speakers we've never seen before this year. Hope to see you there, Scrut.

I attended one Skepticon but decided that if I wanted to sit in an audience and listen to someone pontificate I might as well go back to church.


ETA: I also got a parking ticket from the university that they hounded me about for years.

 

[pharphis]

He was trying to draw some analogy between living as a woman in a Muslim state and being hit upon in
an elevator in the First World. They are not at all the same and they have nothing in common with each
other. Other than they fall under the rather generalised banner of misogyny. By comparing them he was
implying that one was infinitely worse than the other. And that the lesser of the two should therefore not
be considered as serious. This false equivalence fails to address the seriousness of one of these scenarios
in relation to the other. But then why compare two things that have next to nothing in common with each
other anyway ? Any First World problem can be made to appear insignificant when compared to one which
is not First World. A far better comparison would be with women who have no problem with being hit upon
in elevators with women that do and is more valid because the comparitive factor is obviously much greater

It seemed to me like comparing a big problem to a non-problem.

*shrug*

 

[d4m10n]

It seemed to me like comparing a big problem to a non-problem.

That's exactly how the fallacy is supposed to work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation

 

[luchog]

It seemed to me like comparing a big problem to a non-problem.

*shrug*

That's exactly how the fallacy is supposed to work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation

See, that's not what I got from Dawkins' comments. What I got was a comment about the lack of perspective on the part of SJWs, and their tendency to treat minor, even petty, first-world problems as if they're equivalent to the devastating problems existing in the developing world, or to dismiss developing-world issues entirely as "brown-people problems".

A classic example of this is the "rape culture" and "war on women" rhetoric which uses grossly distorted and outright falsified statistics to claim that women everywhere are constantly in danger of being raped, particularly on college campuses, and that they're oppressed and under-represented in every facet of western culture. While at the same time ignoring the existence of real rape culture and war on women in places like the Middle East, and sub-Saharan Africa.

Dawkins comments appeared to me to be merely an attempt to demonstrate how ridiculous their overblown rhetoric is compared to the real world. (And possibly their exclusion of real problems because the victims are "brown people" who the warriors insist "need to solve their own problems themselves".)

 

[Rrose Selavy]

He was trying to draw some analogy between living as a woman in a Muslim state and being hit upon in
an elevator in the First World. They are not at all the same and they have nothing in common with each other. Other than they fall under the rather generalised banner of misogyny.

Misogyny. Something tells me a lot of people still dont understand the meaning of the word if an alleged unreciprocated attempt at a pass is considered "hatred of women".
Which was probably Dawkin's point.

 

[d4m10n]

Dawkins comments appeared to me to be merely an attempt to demonstrate how ridiculous their overblown rhetoric is compared to the real world. (And possibly their exclusion of real problems because the victims are "brown people" who the warriors insist "need to solve their own problems themselves".)

I’m all for pointing out when the rhetoric gets too hyperbolic, but Dawkins didn't exactly do that. He just compared first world problems with vastly worse suffering.

 

[wareyin]

I’m all for pointing out when the rhetoric gets too hyperbolic, but Dawkins didn't exactly do that. He just compared first world problems with vastly worse suffering.

You mean that he compared the misogyny that Watson faced by being allegedly hit on to the misogyny that a woman living under an oppressive Muslim patriarchy faces?

 

[tsig]

You mean that he compared the misogyny that Watson faced by being allegedly hit on to the misogyny that a woman living under an oppressive Muslim patriarchy faces?

Until the world is perfect for women everywhere no women has a right to complain?