• 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.

Merged RD Forum shutting down

Remembering last December

Hell hath no fury like an atheist's scorn!
Just a few months ago, by applying his trade-mark skepticism to the hysteria over global warming, Randi provoked the wrath of his most dogmatic followers. In addition to this site, it was unleashed all over the blogosphere. Randi was also taken aback by the viscious, knee-jerk reaction over merely expressing the centrist opinion revealing he was a luke-warmer. To the CAGW proponents, you're either with us or against us. Questioning any piece of the rhetoric is intolerable.Doubt=Heresy and name-calling is a perfectly acceptable technique in this unique issue. The rules call for using every logical fallacy to champion the CAGW political cause. Randi has experience under his belt with accusations that his skepticism on a hot-button issue equates to a gross character flaw. When innocent people were criminally convicted based soley on the "victim's" testimony obtained under hyponosis or from FC, he was publically accused of being a pedophile. How could he possibly be skeptical of these innocent victims unless he has a nefarious motive? Being called a "denialist" was not such a big deal. I am impressed that he took these charlatans head-on, leaving the zealous content on his site. One day it will be interesting to look back at this culture of panic.

Dawkins, on the otherhand, posted his scathing retort to these phantom character assassinations as his sole comment on the crisis. It's pretty revealing of his low tolerance for criticism. He refuses to engage in debates with the prominent Christians, such as D'Souza and Craig. Interesting how he has no problem using over-the-top attacks on religion, himself.
I think what may be unique in both situations, is the perception that these 2 events have given the opposition ammunition. Especially noted by statements vowing to never contribute to their foundation ever again. It seems Randi has redeemed himself in the eyes of his followers. Once it becomes apparent that Dawkins is completely complicit in canceling the forum, I wonder how much financial damage will occur. As a non-atheist, I have mixed feelings. When people feel betrayed by religious leaders, often it leads to abandonment of the faith. Since atheism is lack of belief, I can't imagine this will undermine it.
Chalk it up to the New Atheists! He's mistreated his followers the same way just like everyone else.
Do atheist morals boil down to he who has the gold makes the rules? Afterall, isn't RDF a foundation made up of supporters? Way to cannalbilize the foundation!:covereyes
 
Last edited:
I can see that a lot of people won't be satisfied with this, and I can see that they have some valid reasons for that, but nonetheless I'm glad to see it. It's too late as far as destroying the community of course; that's already fractured into several different places, and then some of those will drift back to the new version of the RDF forum and some won't, but since it's already been made clear that the RDF weren't interested in that type of community, then that would have been the case however it was handled.

At least he's acknowledged that things were done badly, and the response was poor. If the promise to keep the old forum archived, at least for long enough for others to back it up properly, is kept, then so much the better, although it would be even better if it was restored as it existed a week or two ago, deleted posters and all. And while I understand the need to present a united front, and that JT (and perhaps AC) are real friends that he supports, it would be nice if their misdeeds were also acknowledged.
 
Good thing that people didn't just "get over it" too quickly. Rabble-rousing led to the apology, plus the retaining of 2 million+ posts on a functioning and reliable website.

The UK media still sucks until proven otherwise though :p
 
Dragoonster said:
Good thing that people didn't just "get over it" too quickly. Rabble-rousing led to the apology
Click to expand...

Evidence suggests otherwise. Or did you miss the paragraph where he defends Josh from all the attacks made on other websites?

If the lesson you take from this is that "rabble-rousing works", you are going to be disappointed throughout your life. You should be taking a different lesson entirely -- which is that the calmer voices that Dawkins _was_ willing to listen to prevailed despite the hatred being spouted by the irrational few.
 
remirol said:
Evidence suggests otherwise. Or did you miss the paragraph where he defends Josh from all the attacks made on other websites?
Click to expand...

It's not comprehensive but it is an apology. One I doubt would've happened if there had been no prolonged negative reaction. His initial response was the "Outrage" post; something caused him to reevaluate that into the "Apology" post. What could it have been? Let's just go by his words, my bold:

Richard Dawkins said:
The controversy caused by our decision to close the forums on RichardDawkins.net has greatly upset me. It has been raging for several days now and I have spent that time – frustratingly hampered by long haul flights, jet lag and the need to consult people in several different time zones – talking to colleagues and trustees, and reading a multitude of emails as well as open letters, blogs, internet comments and even newspaper articles, and I am now finally in a position to respond publicly.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he was in a position to realize he had a potential PR disaster going on and had to dig himself out. Or he realized he'd overreacted or acted rashly and legitimately felt sorry for it. Either way, the way he realized this was by taking the "raging" reaction seriously.

If the lesson you take from this is that "rabble-rousing works", you are going to be disappointed throughout your life. You should be taking a different lesson entirely -- which is that the calmer voices that Dawkins _was_ willing to listen to prevailed despite the hatred being spouted by the irrational few.
Click to expand...

I don't hold the definition of "rabble-rousing" to only apply to hateful responses. Too, rabble-rousing by others can motivate calmer types to act and keep acting.

The prolonged backlash realized concessions in the form of database protection, and contrition in the form of apology.
 
rwguinn said:
That's an apology?

It's Ok, if you are a hero-worshiper, but to me--nope. That's not an apology, it's rationalization
Click to expand...

Wow, you're hard to please:

Richard Dawkins said:
...

I would like to start by apologising for our handling of this situation.

...we have caused unintended hurt and offence, and I am very sorry about that...

...I hope you will understand the human impulses that led to this, and accept my apology for them. I take full personal responsibility. ...

... Once again, I apologise for our mistakes and take full responsibility for them.
Click to expand...

Would it be better if it were written in his own blood?

(Note, I'm not only no hero-worshipper, I've been very critical of Dawkins and am apt to call him Dorkins.)
 
The Atheist said:
Wow, you're hard to please:



Would it be better if it were written in his own blood?

(Note, I'm not only no hero-worshipper, I've been very critical of Dawkins and am apt to call him Dorkins.)
Click to expand...


Hey watch this!

The character assassination inflicted on him and other team members was beyond reason.

...

the comments ... revealed a disturbing sense of territorialism, entitlement, and extremism of language; and that this reinforced our determination

...

we could all learn from this sorry saga, and then put it behind us and move on.

...

personally, I hope now to enter fully into the spirit of my Australian tour, which has hitherto been marred by a black cloud of despond and enervating anxiety
Click to expand...

Turns out single line cut and pastes can filter out all contradictory information. Who knew?
 
quixotecoyote said:
Turns out single line cut and pastes can filter out all contradictory information. Who knew?
Click to expand...

That is baloney.

Dawkins has apologised, that is quite plain and the accusation was that he hasn't. That he also aims a few barbs doesn't lessen the apology.
 
remirol said:
I believe the JREF long ago implemented a system which produces the desired similar end-result (public-facing/googleable portion of the forum about desired topics, private section about cats and pooper) without quite so draconian measures (ie. no private section, new topics must require approval).

I'm certainly interested in hearing what recursive prophet has to say about this, since RDF was held up so frequently by him in many discussions as an example of how "well" a system could work. I guess it wasn't working according to the guys who paid the bills, after all. :oldroll:
Click to expand...
I only said it looked very good in contrast to JREF moderation, remi, and I repeated that fact just recently on FM. I left RDF and moved, along with quite a few others from the science forums there, to TalkRational last April. I have also posted in FM my opinion that it will be shallow pocket sites like TR that will soon dominate the discussion forums. Groups like RDF and JREF are simply too vulnerable in our litigious culture to allow for free, vibrant, and uncensored discussion.

Dragoonster said:
Good thing that people didn't just "get over it" too quickly. Rabble-rousing led to the apology, plus the retaining of 2 million+ posts on a functioning and reliable website.
Click to expand...

remirol said:
Evidence suggests otherwise. Or did you miss the paragraph where he defends Josh from all the attacks made on other websites?

If the lesson you take from this is that "rabble-rousing works", you are going to be disappointed throughout your life. You should be taking a different lesson entirely -- which is that the calmer voices that Dawkins _was_ willing to listen to prevailed despite the hatred being spouted by the irrational few.
Click to expand...
Speaking from personal experience wrt the part I bolded just above Remi? At any rate I see your quote mining skills are still well honed. You mention Dawkins’ too little too late apology, and ignore what was a far more significant concession. It’s the part you left out from Dragoonster’s post that I emphasized in his reply.

I’m truly amazed RD is so far out of the cyber-loop he didn’t anticipate what a public relations disaster he was heading into with this sudden closing of the forum. It has now been covered extensively in the mainstream press, and there is a movement afoot among former RDF members in Australia to not applaud when he takes the podium at the upcoming atheists convention there. The blowback from this is only beginning.

Most of the RDF exiles have moved to Rationalia, and now the former mods and admins have created a new site with a similar format and software to the old rd.net which they call rationalskepticism. I imagine some will try out JREF, and I’m quite curious about how they will fare here. :)
 
Apart from the restraints of conventional politeness, dawkins usually says what he thinks.
The "Outrage" letter was written by a baffled, hurt and angry man.
The apology is written by the same man after acquiring a lot of data in a hurry under difficult conditions.

A sharp learning curve, it seems, but one he has rapidly ascended.

I am pleased to see him take personal responsibility for the debacle, protecting his staff. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when he and Josh discuss it all- but a good officer never humiliates his lieutenants in front of the enlisted men. He takes the wrap and cleans up the mess.

This is pretty much what I had hoped to see. Damn shame it wasn't avoided in the first place, but coprolites happen.
 
rwguinn said:
That's an apology?

It's Ok, if you are a hero-worshiper, but to me--nope. That's not an apology, it's rationalization
Click to expand...
From TFA:

I would like to start by apologising for our handling of this situation. We have not communicated well with our forum volunteers and users (for example in my insensitive 'Outrage' post, which was written in the heat of the moment). In the process we have caused unintended hurt and offence, and I am very sorry about that.
Click to expand...

Yes it's an apology. What more did you want?
 
I thought the apology was clear - it apologised for the rash actions of the RDF folk and for the emotional hurt it caused people, it also acknowledged the members and the mod team's contributions whilst explaining why they were not held to be as valuable to the RD team as they were to the members.

...snip...

I would like to start by apologising for our handling of this situation. We have not communicated well with our forum volunteers and users (for example in my insensitive 'Outrage' post, which was written in the heat of the moment). In the process we have caused unintended hurt and offence, and I am very sorry about that. In a classic case of a vicious circle, some of the responses to our announcement also caused considerable hurt and distress to us, and in the atmosphere of heightened emotion that followed, some of our subsequent actions went too far. I hope you will understand the human impulses that led to this, and accept my apology for them. I take full personal responsibility.

...snip...
Click to expand...

I really can't see how he could have been more apologetic for the actual things they did wrong. What is it that folk think he hasn't apologised for?
 
quixotecoyote said:
Not, "I'm sorry, but you had it coming."
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I've read the whole article and at no point does he say "you had it coming". Yes, he defends Josh. He has to. Josh is his employee and also some of the more extreme comments about Josh really were too extreme.

If Josh were my employee, I would do the same thing, but privately there would be an uncomfortable conversation with him about the whole miserable incident at a later date.
 
I for one accepted his apology. I did not do so in the responses to his post but gladly do so here.

Not forgetting how busy with other things on his mind, what with the tour and all, I think he again has shown what a great man he is.
But, I doubt I will return there.
 
rwguinn said:
That's an apology?

It's Ok, if you are a hero-worshiper, but to me--nope. That's not an apology, it's rationalization
Click to expand...

I thought the "PBUH" might have indicated how I felt about the apology and about RD himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom