Wow, you mean a propaganda movement with billions and billions of dollars behind it hasn’t just been stopped by shouting it down?
You’re strawmaning.
I never said “stopped”
I am curious what the most effective strategy is for persuading people outside of your most thoughtful and scientific bubble.
Greta T’s righteous anger had been a more potent mover of public opinion than a bunch of “polite discourse” on like Meet the Press or whatever.
I didn’t realize you were a doctor of biological sciences, which means I need to hold your opinions on this particular topic in much higher regard. Maybe I’m being gullible. I honestly have a hard time believing that a man like Dawkins is transphobic or trying to use his platform to create transphobia. He seems a man of science to me ready to be proven wrong. I also think he (like me) likes to play the devil’s advocate to encourage thinking. I have enjoyed his books and maybe I’m biased because of that
There are two different things here:
-
If you are actually trying to change the mind of an individual, shouting them down doesn’t work and actually entrenches them deeper in their beliefs.
-
If you are trying to stop an individual from polluting the public discourse with misinformation, then shouting them down is more effective than engaging their misinformation point by point. Because their objective is to mislead, they can always change what they’re saying without giving up their objective.
1 Like
I do advocate for trans people and all LGBTQ rights to be accepted members of all parts of society. I just don’t understand the science behind it. I someone who looks male tells me they identify as a female, I will happily oblige. Not because I understand the science, but because I respect their right to identify how they want
However, do YOU yourself refer to people you don’t know as “they”? I know people who do and it’s probably the proper way. If someone asks you who do I give my ticket to and it’s a male looking person with a tan shirt, you should probably say they are, instead of he is. Or give it to them pointing at the male looking person. Personal question: Do you do this? I don’t, but we probably should, since we cannot know how this person identifies
Every good sales person knows that calling a potential client an idiot if they don’t immediately see your company and product is the best way to go is the most effective means of persuading and winning them over to your side of the table
You’ll have to point one out cuz all I’ve ever seen from him are responses that any troglodyte would give
Okay…
So what’s the point you’re trying to make?
I was lazily using the second person imprecisely. My intention was not to excoriate you, but to excoriate Dawkins for using his platform to amplify the voices of transphobes rather than just plainly advocating on behalf of trans people if his intention was to advocate for trans people. It’s a big reason why he looks like a transphobe. Unless he’s deeply, deeply stupid, he would know that by proposing a debate, he’s going to give a big platform to the transphobic side.
I am probably not perfect, but I try to do this.
Most cis and trans men would prefer to be called “that man over there” when they clearly are presenting as men, from what I’ve seen and heard. Calling people “male looking people” has a subtext that they’re not really male, they only look that way. But calling people “men” and “women” based on gender expression not only fits in with colloquial English but it also fits in with the idea that trans women are women and should be regarded as such.
It’s possible you are viewing this through your own biased lens because you yourself are not a bigot and tie intelligence and anti-bigotry together. Bigots come in all forms. Plenty of really smart people can be racists, transphobic, ignorant assholes. Knowing nothing about this guy I have zero difficulty believing that he may be super smart while also being a transphobic idiot, even if he understands the science.
How do people in this day and age still not understand what free speech is?
That is a completely different issue/scenario then the one posed by the Op.
The government passing a law limiting protests would be an entirely different Op then what was posed here, which is “are we losing free speech because private institutions react negatively to offensive speech.” For the latter, we have never had that kind of “free speech.” Nobody has ever had the right to say anything they want free from societal consequences from private actors and individuals because their speech was offensive. That is not a thing that has ever existed in this country.
1 Like
The facile GUVMINT RESTRICTIONS argument is very tired.
Free speech is quintessentially the ability to speak and discuss topics openly in all public fora.
Grunching. The Dawkins case has nothing to do with free speech. Someone who presents an award is free to revoke it from scum bags.
Come on cactus, you know this isn’t what free
Speech is. Businesses, people and other entities have freedom to interact and support who they want.
We are not benefiting any discussions when we throw things like this up as a free speech issue.
In fact having the guy you name “Humanist of the Year” coming out as horribly transphobic is pretty awful.
Dawkins is still free to share his hateful views. This organization is not required to reward him for them,
Regret’s reply at the beginning of the thread was the most important one. Most racist arguments are bad enough that giving them a platform does more harm than good. But, like dice systems, there are a few that on the surface seem reasonable and will persuade moderately intelligent people who won’t accept the overarching logical argument. Dealing it twice is another example. And if you are automatically dismissive of all dice systems you miss out on the chance to change the mind of people who can be reasoned with by going into detail, as RegretS and superuberbob did.
1 Like
So his transphobic tweets were peer reviewed? Can you cite the journals?
Bigotry can override all other sensibilities and intelligence for some people at times,
Saying xyz is smart or accomplished so they can’t be bigoted is literally not an acceptable defense.
How so? We live in a time when any asshole can jump on fifty thousand different online media and spout of any bullshit that asshole wants to. This is the freeiest speechiest time to be alive in the history of the world.
1 Like
Many of them don’t really want to understand.
Also many of then are also being fed … misinformation! Which is the whole point!