KPFA cancels Richard Dawkins’ speech because Islam

[Greater Cesnica]

Even then, one can gather from the title of the book what it's ultimately about. I mean, considering how they invited the guy specifically to discuss his new book, you'd think they'd have known what the subject matter of the interview was going to be. It's not like they went into this thinking that Dawkins is an Islamic Mufti who was going to talk about the virtues of Islam.

My guess is that they knew exactly what they were getting into, and backed out the moment they realized there might be some public backlash.

There's a world of difference between reading a book on atheism and thinking it's hot stuff and supporting the author in the things that he's said outside of the book. "Islam is evil; why aren't Muslims condemning these attacks? SAD" isn't exactly what most atheists want their poster boy to be, which is why he's not the figure he was just a few short years ago before he started this whole... display.

Wait, you wanted a Spreadsheet about Muslims not condemning shit? (I know you didn't, but let me post this lol)

Let's see...

Got it!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

[Greater Cesnica]

From that news report:

“I have called IslamISM “vile” but surely you, of all people, understand that Islamism is not the same as Islam,” Dawkins wrote. “I have criticised the ridiculous pseudoscientific claims made by Islamic apologists (“the sun sets in a marsh” etc), and the opposition of Islamic “ scholars” to evolution and other scientific truths. I have criticised the appalling misogyny and homophobia of Islam, I have criticised the murdering of apostates for no crime other than their disbelief. Far from attacking Muslims, I understand – as perhaps you do not – that Muslims themselves are the prime victims of the oppressive cruelties of Islamism, especially Muslim women.”

Nope. I don't think this is offensive. This is the plain truth.

Of course, Dawkins is currently in the process of denying he is remotely Islamophobic or racist.
Indeed these aren't whatever "offensive tweets" to which the station dropped the interview over, this is Dawkins' rebuttal.

That moment when a triggered Lib can't tell what a Tweet means.

[Conserative Morality]

A rough timeline.

[Greater Cesnica]

A rough timeline.

(Image)

I really feel fucking so sorry for him. It's senility.

[New Rogernomics]

It isn't misleading at all. The title of the article the thread quotes is: 'KPFA cancels Richard Dawkins’ speech because of his tweets about Islam'.
'

Did I say the title of the article was misleading? No. I didn't.

Did I say the title of the thread was misleading? Yes I did.

"Because Islam" - because Islam what? Because Islam made threats? Because Islam asked them to?

The active verb suggests Islam had something to do with this, but it didn't. It was because Richard Dawkins is a hateful fuck who thinks he knows better than everyone else about every subject under the sun. The actual religion, and people in the religion, had very little to do with it being cancelled.

So "Because Islam" is incredibly misleading, almost (one could say) defamatory.

Read the article. It states quite clearly in that it isn't just his tweets about islam, but his other statements about Islam. His opinions of Islam had very much to do with him being cancelled:

...in his tweets and other comments on Islam...

Though rage against the OP, isn't exactly a new thing. Shortening an article title, becomes 'OP is misleading everyone', 'conspiracy'. When it really is just shortening an article title.

[Sanctissima]

Even then, one can gather from the title of the book what it's ultimately about. I mean, considering how they invited the guy specifically to discuss his new book, you'd think they'd have known what the subject matter of the interview was going to be. It's not like they went into this thinking that Dawkins is an Islamic Mufti who was going to talk about the virtues of Islam.

My guess is that they knew exactly what they were getting into, and backed out the moment they realized there might be some public backlash.

There's a world of difference between reading a book on atheism and thinking it's hot stuff and supporting the author in the things that he's said outside of the book. "Islam is evil; why aren't Muslims condemning these attacks? SAD" isn't exactly what most atheists want their poster boy to be, which is why he's not the figure he was just a few short years ago before he started this whole... display.

Large portions of his books are basically rants about religion and, specifically, Islam.

It's... pretty unbelievable that they'd decide to interview a militant Atheist about militant Atheism, and then claim they didn't realize he hates religion, even though he's pretty well-renowned for hating religion, and Islam in particular.

[Calladan]

Did I say the title of the article was misleading? No. I didn't.

Did I say the title of the thread was misleading? Yes I did.

"Because Islam" - because Islam what? Because Islam made threats? Because Islam asked them to?

The active verb suggests Islam had something to do with this, but it didn't. It was because Richard Dawkins is a hateful fuck who thinks he knows better than everyone else about every subject under the sun. The actual religion, and people in the religion, had very little to do with it being cancelled.

So "Because Islam" is incredibly misleading, almost (one could say) defamatory.

Read the article. It states quite clearly in that it isn't just his tweets about islam, but his other statements about Islam. His opinions of Islam had very much to do with him being cancelled:

...in his tweets and other comments on Islam...

Though rage against the OP, isn't exactly a new thing. Shortening an article title, becomes 'OP is misleading everyone', 'conspiracy'. When it really is just shortening an article title.

Oh dear lord. I am so done.

[Sovaal]

A rough timeline.

(Image)

But which rape is better, the swan raping him or he raping the swan?/s

[Nazbol Pudding Club]

Are we sure it's not time to cancel Islam.

Why Why, I was just waiting for someone like you to pop up. So why do you want to cancel this Century's Edition of the Blame Game?

I don't want to cancel anything - I'm of the generation deeply affected by Firefly after all. I've probably even still got a Myspace.

[New Rogernomics]

A rough timeline.

(Image)

But which rape is better, the swan raping him or he raping the swan?/s

No rape preferably?

[Sovaal]

But which rape is better, the swan raping him or he raping the swan?/s

No rape preferably?

Is of joke. Notice the /s?

[Liriena]

It's their radio station. They can invite and uninvite as they see fit. There really isn't any free speech issue at play here.

[Liriena]

This is getting ridiculous. The best way to defeat someone's opinion is to give them a platform, hence exposing their faults and opening opportunities for a sufficient rebuttal. Silencing them would only add to their appeal.

Its crazy because a few decades ago Berkeley students allowed Strom Thurmond to express his political beliefs without incident, citing free speech. Now there are SJWs everywhere who defy that spirit of free speech, and it seems like the Berkeley community is following suit.

No-platforming is not an infringement on anyone's free speech. Also, "SJWs" is little more than a slur.

[Union of Christian States]

Does free speech mean freedom from offense and hurt feelings?

Yes, obviously, that's the entire point of free speech.

Of course, a privately-owned business is in no way bound by freedom of speech, they have complete freedom of association and they are free to host whoever they please on their radio show.

That is very obviously not the point of free speech as protecting people from being offended would require restricting other peoples speech, which is the exact opposite of free speech.

[Greater Cesnica]

This is getting ridiculous. The best way to defeat someone's opinion is to give them a platform, hence exposing their faults and opening opportunities for a sufficient rebuttal. Silencing them would only add to their appeal.

Its crazy because a few decades ago Berkeley students allowed Strom Thurmond to express his political beliefs without incident, citing free speech. Now there are SJWs everywhere who defy that spirit of free speech, and it seems like the Berkeley community is following suit.

No-platforming is not an infringement on anyone's free speech. Also, "SJWs" is little more than a slur.

I guess it's time for someone, preferably the Mods to settle this one and for all: Is the term SJW a derogatory slur?

[Liriena]

A rough timeline.

(Image)

Oh, I had forgotten about the whole kid with a clock thing and how Dawkins had poured more fuel into that dumpster fire.

[Liriena]

No-platforming is not an infringement on anyone's free speech. Also, "SJWs" is little more than a slur.

I guess it's time for someone, preferably the Mods to settle this one and for all: Is the term SJW a derogatory slur?

I actually received an unofficial response from a mod on this once. So far, there's nothing actionable about it. It's not quite like calling someone, say, a "libtard" or "cuckservative" or anything like that, which can and will get you a mod response.

[Proctopeo]

This is getting ridiculous. The best way to defeat someone's opinion is to give them a platform, hence exposing their faults and opening opportunities for a sufficient rebuttal. Silencing them would only add to their appeal.

Its crazy because a few decades ago Berkeley students allowed Strom Thurmond to express his political beliefs without incident, citing free speech. Now there are SJWs everywhere who defy that spirit of free speech, and it seems like the Berkeley community is following suit.

No-platforming is not an infringement on anyone's free speech. Also, "SJWs" is little more than a slur.

A slur against what specific group?
I'm pretty sure that there's a better term than "slur" to use in regards to the term, anyway. I think it was "snarl word"?

[Liriena]

No-platforming is not an infringement on anyone's free speech. Also, "SJWs" is little more than a slur.

A slur against what specific group?
I'm pretty sure that there's a better term than "slur" to use in regards to the term, anyway. I think it was "snarl word"?

Sounds good. Also, who it's against seems to vary a lot. Sometimes it's thrown at people for something as minor as, say, wishing that there was more and better LGBT representation in art and entertainment.

[Shofercia]

In the latest Berkeley controversy over what speakers may talk about, the progressive radio station KPFA has canceled an Aug. 9 on-stage appearance by the scientist Richard Dawkins.

KPFA had invited the British scientist to discuss his newest book, Science in the Soul: Collected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist, which it termed “excellent.” But on Thursday the news organization canceled the event, citing concerns about the tone of some of Dawkins’ tweets about Muslims.

“We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science when we didn’t know he had offended and hurt – in his tweets and other comments on Islam, so many people,” KPFA said in an email sent to ticket buyers. “KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech. While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech. We apologize for not having had broader knowledge of Dawkins views much earlier.”

Dawkins challenged KPFA’s interpretation of his tweets through a press release issued by the Center for Public Inquiry. In 2017, his Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science merged with the Center for Public Inquiry and Dawkins holds a board seat.

Link: http://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/07/21/ ... ets-islam/

So after Ann Coulter, now Richard Dawkins is not welcome...

Really a few questions to discuss here.

Does free speech mean freedom from offense and hurt feelings?

Are they justified in cancelling the event?

So boycotting Israel is not ok. Verbally criticizing Islamism is not ok. Bombing the shit out of the Middle East - now that's perfectly fine! All part of new a policy, "bomb first... ask questions - never!"

Wow, just... wow.

[Liriena]

Link: http://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/07/21/ ... ets-islam/

So after Ann Coulter, now Richard Dawkins is not welcome...

Really a few questions to discuss here.

Does free speech mean freedom from offense and hurt feelings?

Are they justified in cancelling the event?

So boycotting Israel is not ok. Verbally criticizing Islamism is not ok. Bombing the shit out of the Middle East - now that's perfectly fine! All part of new a policy, "bomb first... ask questions - never!"

Wow, just... wow.

Why are you acting like the exact same people are responsible for all three????

[Proctopeo]

A slur against what specific group?
I'm pretty sure that there's a better term than "slur" to use in regards to the term, anyway. I think it was "snarl word"?

Sounds good. Also, who it's against seems to vary a lot. Sometimes it's thrown at people for something as minor as, say, wishing that there was more and better LGBT representation in art and entertainment.

If the target varies a lot, then it's not a slur.

I've mostly seen it used against the "sex is a social construct" and "science is racist and should be abolished" type of people.

[Conserative Morality]

If the target varies a lot, then it's not a slur.

I've mostly seen it used against the "sex is a social construct" and "science is racist and should be abolished" type of people.

Really? I've seen it used against anyone who even vaguely supports gender or LGBT equality or acknowledges that there is still homophobia and sexism in society.

[Greater Cesnica]

So boycotting Israel is not ok. Verbally criticizing Islamism is not ok. Bombing the shit out of the Middle East - now that's perfectly fine! All part of new a policy, "bomb first... ask questions - never!"

Wow, just... wow.

Why are you acting like the exact same people are responsible for all three????

Kek.

[Shofercia]

So boycotting Israel is not ok. Verbally criticizing Islamism is not ok. Bombing the shit out of the Middle East - now that's perfectly fine! All part of new a policy, "bomb first... ask questions - never!"

Wow, just... wow.

Why are you acting like the exact same people are responsible for all three????

I'm sorry. I'm just tired of the confrontational mentality, while trying to cater to absurd sensitivities. The very same people who are anti Dawkins, probably didn't mind bombing the shit out of Syria. The very same people who are against criticizing Israel with boycotts, probably didn't mind bombing the shit out of Iraq. The absurdity is just... exponential.