A Dawkins No-No

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Dawkins is getting old and as you get old you get more grouchy. There are only few who mellow out instead. He notices all the stupid shit happening now including three quarters of the garbage which qualifies as political correctness. He may not be the most pleasant character, but his views certainly manifest a Weltanschauung more in sync with reality than 90% of what's proclaimed as such on philosophy forums or other forums like it.

I like him a lot. Always have. I don't think he's grouchy. He just cuts through the crap. People are so obsessed with being 'nice' these days and not 'faux offending' anyone. The day he faux 'apologises' will be the day I write him off.

[Terrapin Station]

I just don't get how Twitter has managed to wield so much power in such a short time.
I created an account a couple of years ago for the sole purpose of seeing what all the fuss was about and still haven't worked out how to make comments or do anything with it. There is also nothing 'social' about it.
I couldn't find any of these 'twitter storms' that we keep hearing about.
What am I missing?

It's basically like a message board--like this, but where (a) you're restricted to being extremely concise (which I like, although twitter's limit is probably a bit too concise for philosophy), and where (b) literally millions of people, including lots of known/identified celebrities, are interacting. It also doesn't have a "central" organizational system--it's more focused on individuals' pages. Imagine if we had to do everything here via our profiles. To find comments on particular topics you need to search for keywords (or look at the "trending" links).

[Immanuel Can]

The day he faux 'apologises' will be the day I write him off.

Richard Dawkins
@RichardDawkins
·
Apr 12
I do not intend to disparage trans people. I see that my academic “Discuss” question has been misconstrued as such and I deplore this. It was also not my intent to ally in any way with Republican bigots in US now exploiting this issue .


Richard Dawkins
@RichardDawkins
·
Apr 22
Sorry if posting this seems immodest. But
@JuliaGalef
in 2015 expressed so EXACTLY what I try to do when I say “Discuss”, I couldn’t resist. Like any Oxford tutor, I spent my whole career doing it, hoping to learn. Alas, it doesn’t seem to suit Twitter.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The day he faux 'apologises' will be the day I write him off.

Richard Dawkins
@RichardDawkins
·
Apr 12
I do not intend to disparage trans people. I see that my academic “Discuss” question has been misconstrued as such and I deplore this. It was also not my intent to ally in any way with Republican bigots in US now exploiting this issue .


Richard Dawkins
@RichardDawkins
·
Apr 22
Sorry if posting this seems immodest. But
@JuliaGalef
in 2015 expressed so EXACTLY what I try to do when I say “Discuss”, I couldn’t resist. Like any Oxford tutor, I spent my whole career doing it, hoping to learn. Alas, it doesn’t seem to suit Twitter.

'Faux apologies' always follow the same generic formula. ''I am deeply sorry for any offence that I may have caused and it was never my intent to upset or offend members of the trans, African American, muslim, gay....community blah blah'
It's hardly being a 'Republican American bigot' by going with science, or saying that male rapists shouldn't be put in female prisons.
If you read it properly it's actually a back-handed 'apology', saying that even asking anyone to discuss or think about something that doesn't fit with the PC agenda is a major crime these days especially on something like 'twitter' which is run by American morons. He's being sarcastic.

[Immanuel Can]

The day he faux 'apologises' will be the day I write him off.

...it's actually a back-handed 'apology'...,

Ah. So not "faux." Just "faux-faux."

So it's okay. He didn't mean to apologize when he apologized for not having done anything wrong.

I'm SO amused.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The day he faux 'apologises' will be the day I write him off.

...it's actually a back-handed 'apology'...,

Ah. So not "faux." Just "faux-faux."

So it's okay. He didn't mean to apologize when he apologized for not having done anything wrong.

I'm SO amused.

Are you really that thick? (rhetorical question). Fuck off.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm SO amused.

Are you really that thick?

Heh.

I'm actually with Dawkins on this one: he has a right to invite discussion of that question. And I agree with you, that it would be unconscionable to apologize for doing so. Free discussion is exactly what's needed, what's appropriate, what's right.

But since he was right, we might wonder, why did he feel the need to walk it back at all?

[henry quirk]

I'm SO amused.

Are you really that thick?

Heh.

I'm actually with Dawkins on this one: he has a right to invite discussion of that question. And I agree with you, that it would be unconscionable to apologize for doing so. Free discussion is exactly what's needed, what's appropriate, what's right.

But since he was right, we might wonder, *why did he feel the need to walk it back at all?

*Cuz he's a chickenshit? Cuz his convictions are fair weather? Cuz he lacks a spine?

[Immanuel Can]

*Cuz he's a chickenshit? Cuz his convictions are fair weather? Cuz he lacks a spine?

Well, one thing for sure...he doesn't have the courage of his convictions. The minute the Left squealed, he folded like Superman on laundry day.

[henry quirk]

*Cuz he's a chickenshit? Cuz his convictions are fair weather? Cuz he lacks a spine?

Well, one thing for sure...he doesn't have the courage of his convictions. The minute the Left squealed, he folded like Superman on laundry day.

HA!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I'm SO amused.

Are you really that thick?

Heh.

I'm actually with Dawkins on this one: he has a right to invite discussion of that question. And I agree with you, that it would be unconscionable to apologize for doing so. Free discussion is exactly what's needed, what's appropriate, what's right.

But since he was right, we might wonder, why did he feel the need to walk it back at all?

At first I thought he had, but reading it more carefully I see what he's doing. And yes, it would have been nice if he'd just told them to get fucked but I think he's doing that in his own way. Read it again. Your beef would be his mentioning of the 'American right-wing bigots', which clearly you are part of, even if you aren't American (although you might as well be). He is unboubtedly aware of how the right wing bigots keep fucking up the arguments against Political Correctness. They just need to fuck off and keep out of it and leave it to science and those with an ability to argue with logic, reason and evidence. Fucking political agenda-driven wankers.

[Immanuel Can]

...it would have been nice if he'd just told them to get f.....d"

That, perhaps in other, more polite words, is exactly what a good person would do.

Your beef would be his mentioning of the 'American right-wing bigots'

Ha. No, I care nothing for that. I think it's really silly, actually.

But I do think it's interesting that Dawkins is clearly kneeling to the Leftist narrative by mentioning that, because the illusory "right wing bigot" is the biggest bogeyman the Left uses to justify it's excesses. See how he's using that, begging to be "forgiven" and "let back into the party" by his Leftist critics. How he caters to them. How he protests, "I never meant to cross y'all...y'know I love ya...and hate your enemies."

And yet, he was making an important scientific point. And all he asked for was "discussion." His critics are clearly unprincipled, ideologically-possessed fools; but Dawkins is down on his knees, pleading that he meant no harm, when you and I know he should be saying, "I have every right to ask that we have reasoned discussion on this important topic. I've asked you a good question: now, man up and answer it." That's what he should be saying. But he's not. He's afraid. He's retracting. He's placating. He's even trying to flatter his oppressors' vanity, with his nonsense about "right wing bigots."

Such a supple spine...such obsequiousness...such flexible principles...such grovelling...such cowardice and servility. It really ought to be beneath a man. But apparently, it's not.

[henry quirk]

Richard Dawkins
@RichardDawkins
·
Apr 12
I do not intend to disparage trans people. I see that my academic “Discuss” question has been misconstrued as such and I deplore this. It was also not my intent to ally in any way with Republican bigots in US now exploiting this issue .

Here, he's on his knees.

Richard Dawkins
@RichardDawkins
·
Apr 22
Sorry if posting this seems immodest. But @JuliaGalef in 2015 expressed so EXACTLY what I try to do when I say “Discuss”, I couldn’t resist. Like any Oxford tutor, I spent my whole career doing it, hoping to learn. Alas, it doesn’t seem to suit Twitter.[/color]

Here, he's explainin' away.

Perhaps, in couple of days, he'll tell the lot to get bent (which is what he shoulda done from the start).

[vegetariantaxidermy]

...it would have been nice if he'd just told them to get f.....d"

That, perhaps in other, more polite words, is exactly what a good person would do.

Your beef would be his mentioning of the 'American right-wing bigots'

Ha. No, I care nothing for that. I think it's really silly, actually.

But I do think it's interesting that Dawkins is clearly kneeling to the Leftist narrative by mentioning that, because the illusory "right wing bigot" is the biggest bogeyman the Left uses to justify it's excesses. See how he's using that, begging to be "forgiven" and "let back into the party" by his Leftist critics. How he caters to them. How he protests, "I never meant to cross y'all...y'know I love ya...and hate your enemies."

And yet, he was making an important scientific point. And all he asked for was "discussion." His critics are clearly unprincipled, ideologically-possessed fools; but Dawkins is down on his knees, pleading that he meant no harm, when you and I know he should be saying, "I have every right to ask that we have reasoned discussion on this important topic. I've asked you a good question: now, man up and answer it." That's what he should be saying. But he's not. He's afraid. He's retracting. He's placating. He's even trying to flatter his oppressors' vanity, with his nonsense about "right wing bigots."

Such a supple spine...such obsequiousness...such flexible principles...such grovelling...such cowardice and servility. It really ought to be beneath a man. But apparently, it's not.

I just don't think he was grovelling. I sense sarcasm.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Richard Dawkins
@RichardDawkins
·
Apr 12
I do not intend to disparage trans people. I see that my academic “Discuss” question has been misconstrued as such and I deplore this. It was also not my intent to ally in any way with Republican bigots in US now exploiting this issue .

Here, he's on his knees.

Richard Dawkins
@RichardDawkins
·
Apr 22
Sorry if posting this seems immodest. But @JuliaGalef in 2015 expressed so EXACTLY what I try to do when I say “Discuss”, I couldn’t resist. Like any Oxford tutor, I spent my whole career doing it, hoping to learn. Alas, it doesn’t seem to suit Twitter.[/color]

Here, he's explainin' away.

Perhaps, in couple of days, he'll tell the lot to get bent (which is what he shoulda done from the start).

I agree. You do get the feeling he's been stewing about it