Richard Dawkins: Islam is Bad

[The Steel Magnolia]

Since nobody seems to be informing Fris on Dawkins's misogyny and he genuinely seems only to know it involves an elevator, here's what happened:

At an atheist conference. Dawkins is of course a major speaker, etc, etc. A group of people meet in the bar at the hotel where it's being held and talk. The discussion turns to misogyny within the atheist movement.

Afterwards, in the elevator, Dawkins is alone with one of the women from the discussion in the bar. He asks her if she wants to go to his room for coffee. Coffee was available at the bar. She declines.

Afterwards, she makes a video (She was already a Youtuber, I think making videos about atheism and feminism) saying that if men want to make women feel at home at their conferences, behavior like Dawkins's doesn't help, especially after that specific discussion.

You can imagine the results. Massive YouTube-fueled backlash. Dawkins posts a sarcastic comment basically saying she has no right to complain, which eggs the trolls on. And so on. Google "Dawkins" and "Skepchick" to find the whole story.

tl;dr: Dawkins is not good at being a human being. Good biologist maybe, but not good person.

Wait a second, asking people out is misogyny now?

Motherfucking called it.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

And it's religious too, creating a religion.

"Religion"

Emphasis on the quotations.

Worshipping a god-like leader with cultic practices is pretty religious.

[Gauthier]

Since nobody seems to be informing Fris on Dawkins's misogyny and he genuinely seems only to know it involves an elevator, here's what happened:

At an atheist conference. Dawkins is of course a major speaker, etc, etc. A group of people meet in the bar at the hotel where it's being held and talk. The discussion turns to misogyny within the atheist movement.

Afterwards, in the elevator, Dawkins is alone with one of the women from the discussion in the bar. He asks her if she wants to go to his room for coffee. Coffee was available at the bar. She declines.

Afterwards, she makes a video (She was already a Youtuber, I think making videos about atheism and feminism) saying that if men want to make women feel at home at their conferences, behavior like Dawkins's doesn't help, especially after that specific discussion.

You can imagine the results. Massive YouTube-fueled backlash. Dawkins posts a sarcastic comment basically saying she has no right to complain, which eggs the trolls on. And so on. Google "Dawkins" and "Skepchick" to find the whole story.

tl;dr: Dawkins is not good at being a human being. Good biologist maybe, but not good person.

Wait a second, asking people out is misogyny now?

It's perfectly acceptable for a man to ask a woman over to his hotel room for some Hot Coffee at a conference. *nod*

[Blasveck]

It was nice for most when he stuck to insulting Christians, because they could support that.

Makes you wonder why it's always open season on Christians, doesn't it?

Because its open season for anyone?

[The Steel Magnolia]

The atheism movement is not about acceptance, it's about abolishing religion.

A noble goal.

A didactic and authoritarian one, that must be fought against.

But congratulations on being even worse than the homophobes.

[Frisivisia]

It was nice for most when he stuck to insulting Christians, because they could support that.

Makes you wonder why it's always open season on Christians, doesn't it?

Probably because Christianity is familiar to most Western critics of religion, is wrong, and doesn't put as much money into assassinating heretics as Islam.

[Seitonjin]

*bangs head on wall*

Nu. Not what I meant. I said extreme in his own (key word Boe Jiden) way.

So are the X-Games, what are you trying to say?

That his methods on criticizing religion insults people who am I? Dubya?

Whoosh. That is the sound of me flying faaaar away from you Boe.

[Frisivisia]

A noble goal.

A didactic and authoritarian one, that must be fought against.

But congratulations on being even worse than the homophobes.

Woah woah woah. If you'd go ahead and look at context, he's using it to mean "end religion", not "BAN BAN BAN", as much as you would want oh so much for me to want that.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

A noble goal.

A didactic and authoritarian one, that must be fought against.

But congratulations on being even worse than the homophobes.

The atheism movement is not about acceptance, it's about abolishing religion.

It's nothing of the sort. No-one (except the lunatic fringe) wants to abolish religion.

[Frisivisia]

So are the X-Games, what are you trying to say?

That his methods on criticizing religion insults people who am I? Dubya?

Whoosh. That is the sound of me flying faaaar away from you Boe.

So. If I say I'm insulted by people who like dogs more than cats, does that make dog people Al Qaeda?

[The Parkus Empire]

Obviously, all atheists are, pfft, "holier than thou" about being hated and despised and essentially unable to hold public office at all or live in religious communities.

You clearly are.

But tell me more about how oppressed you are.

Atheists face some problems.

[Frisivisia]

Wait a second, asking people out is misogyny now?

It's perfectly acceptable for a man to ask a woman over to his hotel room for some Hot Coffee at a conference. *nod*

Especially when they go back and play GTA.

[The Steel Magnolia]

A didactic and authoritarian one, that must be fought against.

But congratulations on being even worse than the homophobes.

Woah woah woah. If you'd go ahead and look at context, he's using it to mean "end religion", not "BAN BAN BAN", as much as you would want oh so much for me to want that.

Which is didactic and authoritarian.

If you make something functionally, but not legally, forbidden, it's still actually forbidden.

[The Steel Magnolia]

You clearly are.

But tell me more about how oppressed you are.

Atheists face some problems.

Not, generally, however, being tortured and killed and shot dead in the street.

Like gay people are every single day.

But no. Tell me to check my privilege.

[Frisivisia]

Woah woah woah. If you'd go ahead and look at context, he's using it to mean "end religion", not "BAN BAN BAN", as much as you would want oh so much for me to want that.

Which is didactic and authoritarian.

If you make something functionally, but not legally, forbidden, it's still actually forbidden.

Well, I suppose you're right, unless you look in the dictionary and see what words actually mean. In that case, you're wrong, but even so...

[The Rich Port]

Guys, can we really not play "Who's More Oppressed?"

Let's just... Not do that.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Who cares?

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

Since nobody seems to be informing Fris on Dawkins's misogyny and he genuinely seems only to know it involves an elevator, here's what happened:

At an atheist conference. Dawkins is of course a major speaker, etc, etc. A group of people meet in the bar at the hotel where it's being held and talk. The discussion turns to misogyny within the atheist movement.

Afterwards, in the elevator, Dawkins is alone with one of the women from the discussion in the bar. He asks her if she wants to go to his room for coffee. Coffee was available at the bar. She declines.

Afterwards, she makes a video (She was already a Youtuber, I think making videos about atheism and feminism) saying that if men want to make women feel at home at their conferences, behavior like Dawkins's doesn't help, especially after that specific discussion.

You can imagine the results. Massive YouTube-fueled backlash. Dawkins posts a sarcastic comment basically saying she has no right to complain, which eggs the trolls on. And so on. Google "Dawkins" and "Skepchick" to find the whole story.

tl;dr: Dawkins is not good at being a human being. Good biologist maybe, but not good person.

COMPLETE BULLSHIT!

the lift incident did happen, but it was not Dawkins, it was a different male at the conference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Watson


Rebecca Watson (the woman involved) posted in her blog about casual sexism at conferences ....it escalated, as it often does, with many stupid men who hate being lectured about their leering sexuality calling her a variety of awful names and threatening her with rape etc....

Dawson's only involvement was to provide a comment when asked about the situation. he said her comments were an over-reaction to the situation, which fuelled another prolonged debate.

Paint Dawkins how you will if it's based on his true actions, but don't accuse him of chatting up random women in lifts when he didn't do it ....how low will people go to demonise him

Rebecca was there to discuss sexism, and on her way back to her room, a man followed her and told her he wanted to fuck her and asked if she would come to his room. She felt this was inappropriate and said "... Guys, don't do that." on her blog.
Insert MASSIVE amounts of men calling her horrific names and threatening to rape her.
Then Dawkins compared what she had went through to what Muslim women in worse male-dominated sexist societies go through and said she had no right to be offended. He put down her feelings because it wasn't as bad as having acid thrown on her face.
Dawkins is a sexist and a downright mean human being.

[Frisivisia]

Atheists face some problems.

Not, generally, however, being tortured and killed and shot dead in the street.

Like gay people are every single day.

But no. Tell me to check my privilege.

Let's play "Who's the most oppressed?"!!!!!

Black people, your turn!

[Nationalist State of Knox]

You clearly are.

But tell me more about how oppressed you are.

Atheists face some problems.

Wow.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Which is didactic and authoritarian.

If you make something functionally, but not legally, forbidden, it's still actually forbidden.

Well, I suppose you're right, unless you look in the dictionary and see what words actually mean. In that case, you're wrong, but even so...

As I'm so fond of saying, formal equality is not substantive equality. So too is it with discrimination. Formalized discrimination is not the same as substantive discrimination.

[Frisivisia]

Guys, can we really not play "Who's More Oppressed?"

Let's just... Not do that.

Dammit you ninja.

[Malfyria]

That moment when people realise atheism is not just about Christianity.

[Blasveck]

Atheists face some problems.

Not, generally, however, being tortured and killed and shot dead in the street.

Like gay people are every single day.

But no. Tell me to check my privilege.

Are atheists in Africa and the Middle East being executed for such?

I'm not sure.

[Aleckandor]

Ole' Dawk isn't a bad guy for being an atheist or a harsh critic of religion, nothing for anyone - both religious and irreligious, alike - to take really seriously. All he does is voice his opinions peaceably (no matter how internally offensive or relatable they may be to different peeps), and nothing more. He's a mainly nonviolent warrior of words and pages, not some guy who would burn places of worship or car-bomb holy sites - which in fact, is the sort of people whom are the reason why he's against religion. And coming from a person still clinging to religion (maybe barely, but still there), I frankly could care less.