Couldn’t agree more with this cartoon. I mean when you’re so infuriated that major markets like Coca Cola, Walt Disney and MLB baseball are going against your morality, you should seriously consider the possibility that you’re morality is simply wrong
So you’re saying he was taking the super idiots seriously who say stupid stuff like next thing ya know people will be identifying as a dog so they can marry their pet. I agree that Dawkins is far too smart not to have seen his tweet would be problematic and I’m not sure he was saying anything. I don’t see where he offered an opinion one way or another or took a side. He may very well feel the same way as his critics do and merely used that as an example for encouraging people to discuss
My overriding point is, that if we don’t allow for discussion and debate even on topics we have already come to terms with it causes a great divide in discourse. There will always be people who refuse to accept a biological male can’t be a woman, or that being gay is a choice. I have never been persuaded by the idiots here telling me I’m wrong by calling me names. I have been persuaded by those saying you’re wrong because… Or you’re wrong because the data shows… etc. I think if you want to change minds polite debate is necessary or we’re just going to keep widening our political divide where there should none if we leave it up to science
This was a clumsy post, but I hope you get the gist of what I’m saying
And she was attracted to being black by looking at black people in National Geographic magazines. She really fetishized black people and crafted her image after a limited view of the entire population then had the nerve to teach African studies.
Also her name is Nkechi Amare Diallo. Don’t you ever dead name her again!!!
1 Like
This one isn’t rocket science.
-
Dawkins is a brilliant scientist who has done immense good
-
he made a really dumb tweet
-
the cancel culture panic is overblown but some people do take it too far
-
there is close to zero chance of anything like losing free speech.
I understand (and agree) with most of what you’ve said here and am pretty sure Dawkins does much more so. I have zero problem with referring to someone with the pronoun they prefer (and I’m sure he does do). As RegretS said above Dawkins is no doubt well aware that his tweet will be construed as problematic. He doesn’t even give his own opinion, but just offers people to discuss. I think Sklansky did this at times too on 2p2 and people just assume they know their position by the questions they pose in order to get people to think
I find it very hard to believe that you can give examples or explanations on anything biology related that Dawkins doesn’t already know, hasn’t taught, or thought much deeper about than your knowledge on the subject allows (unless you’ve been a career biologist for the last 40 years that I don’t know about).
Can you please point out exactly what you think makes him transphobic with his tweet? He doesn’t give his opinion (as far as I can tell). He simply pointed out two examples: One where someone identified as a different biological race that everyone thought was wrong, and one where people identify as a different biological sex and offered people to discuss. I don’t see what’s so wrong with this thought experiment even if the answer is obvious. Why is there to be so afraid about especially if the answer is obvious?
While this is of course technically true, if schools and/or other major institutions curtail speech it is effectively an abridgment of speech.
Even a troll post is a good time to state a case for compassion towards and the humanity of trans people. It’s even a good place to take cathartic pot shots at a famous dude spouting off idiotic hot takes out of his element!
9 Likes
Why do you assume that we ought not to widen our political divide or that there should be none?
1 Like
Let’s hope the people making that determination are good and honorable and beyond reproach, otherwise what they deem an asshole may be what China does.
This thinking can be weaponized. Think about the decades long “debate” on climate change where news channels trotted out 1 scientist to explain action was necessary vs. 1 oil industry lobbyist to say the whole thing was overblown, deferring necessary policy so oil companies wouldn’t lose money. Debate isn’t always good because it isn’t always sincere. People that want to spread misinformation will frame it as debate. It’s more productive to shout them down and tell them to fuck off.
1 Like
Hate speech as I understand it, is any commentary that marginalizes a group, puts them in harms way, or makes them fear for their safety by being made to now feel wanted. There is has been much speech towards Blacks, Muslims, and now Asians that I would define not such as hate speech but an actual crime.
However, if one wants to discuss an idea that certain religious tenets are harmful or dangerous, or think that a law requiring them to call someone something they don’t want to call them, then that falls under free speech imo. No matter how much you vehemently disagree with someone’s warped ideas, they are entitled to express them. You’re allowed to think a man can’t think he’s a woman. I’m allowed to think you’re an idiot for thinking that. Let’s discuss and bring our facts to a public forum and see who comes up with the more persuasive argument
This is a lie, of course. His opinion is baked into the wording. He’s using specifically transphobic language to describe transitioning as if it were something taken as lightly as changing clothes. Furthermore, as stated earlier:
Perhaps you need a reminder about other “philosophical debates” concerning the humanity of other people wanting to live their lives as they see fit:
The only purpose having a “debate” over the humanity of other people serves is to give a platform to those who would deny them humanity while giving them cover as intellectuals rather than as hateful bigots. Dawkins knows full well about this, and he chooses to use his substantial platform to lift up the voices of transphobes.
I’m a Ph.D. in the biological sciences who works in the biological sciences now, but that’s not super relevant. This is undergrad level material. I don’t think you really want to ascribe to Dawkins knowing these things full well, though. That would mean his transphobia was coming from a place of pure malice rather than ignorance. I was willing to spot him a fair degree of ignorance.
9 Likes
What obligation is there to discuss something in a public forum?
zikzak is one of the biggest trolls on this site. I’ve yet to read a single paragraph from him that has any substance or merit. He exists in a pathetic attempt to prove to the world he’s one of the woke crowd and he does this not with any thoughtful responses, but with name calling and piling on. Just pathetic and a worthless contributor
I agree the case needs to be made for compassion and humanity for trans people and many other marginalized groups. I didn’t even mean this to be the main example ITT. There’s a lot I’d like to discuss on the issues of free speech
Zikzak is absolutely not a troll and I am a pretty regular target of his. He is a thoughtful poster.
1 Like
I don’t. I think the divide is reaching scary levels. My point was that the open discussion of ideas may lessen it. When you don’t allow for discussion and just resort to calling people stupid and shaming them, the divide widens because people reflexively get defensive and won’t change their mind to that. If Trump proved anything it was that these people were hiding in their holes until he came along. Their thinking hadn’t changed one bit. True progress (in my opinion) comes from shifting the Overton window and the overall zeitgeist to where there just isn’t room in society for bigoted assholes
…it’s not a violation of or a threat to free speech. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
You can do this by, you know, just plainly advocating for trans people rather than giving a platform for bigots to broadcast the other side and uplift their hate to having equal footing in the Marketplace of Ideas.
I see your point and concern and have many other questions on social media (and even some MSM) about the spread of disinformation as it relates to free speech, which is really where I was hoping this thread to turn to. Like I think there needs to be some government regulation (the FCC?) requiring labels for what’s opinion and what is actual news and facts across all social media forms and even TV news outlets
I would be curious to know if this is true. In terms of as a persuasive tactic. Obviously both sidesing narratives with clear correct answers is wrong, but It also seems like the climate change argument hasn’t exactly gained a ton of currency in recent years with all the shouting down deployed.
Being thoughtful and a troll are not mutually exclusive. In fact, well, nevermind.