His attitude is abrasive and often times his otherwise good arguments get framed negatively by his attitude and lack of tact.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Richard Dawkins tells students upset by Germaine Greer to go home and hug a teddy
- Thread starter Erin S Kittens
- Start date
- Status
dead souls
Member
Dawkins has revealed himself to be a true piece of shit over the past few years starting with Elevatorgate, and continuing on with such wonderful stuff as creepy rape tweets, minimizing "mild" pedophilia, going after Ahmed (aka Clock Kid).
We're at the point where when Dawkins chimes in on something I know he'll be on the wrong side. Just like he is here.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Dawkins was in the right on Elevatorgate. Politely propositioning a woman and receiving her rebuke in good stead is not remotely "bad behavior" worthy of being "called out" in a video.
More like when we see Dawkin's name in the media, it's because it's been blown up by some thing he's expressed in some dumb way.
Might that all of us find ourselves under such public scrutiny... we'd have our own set of vociferous supporters and detractors.
ScatheZombie
Member
No, quite the contrary actually.
There's a difference between a protest of:
"Her opinions on transgender individuals are appalling and here is why she is wrong..."
And...
"Her opinions on transgender individuals are appalling and she shouldn't be allowed to hold a unrelated lecture here..."
One is a confrontation of conflicting ideas in which you are actively attempting to show how a shitty opinion is a shitty opinion. The other is an avoidance of confrontation in which said shitty opinion continues to fester unchallenged or garners (unwarranted) sympathy simply for its suppression, regardless of its context or content. One is a difficult exercise of critical thinking. The other is avoiding an uncomfortable subject.
I like this. Best explanation thus far for the limits of the right to free speech.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Half of the things Dawkins commented on, he had no business commenting on them in the first place though.
Yo, claiming that people who want to remove the platform of someone who intends to spew vile, hateful bigotry are "avoiding an uncomfortable subject" is erasing the harm of said speech. The kind of hate speech Greer preaches isn't avoidable, the targets of her hate speech hear it every single day. Like I said earlier, what's happening is that certain hate speech is considered more appropriate to air in public debate because it's about trans people and not cis women or LGB people or non-white people. We rightfully reject the idea of Elam, David Duke, the Phelpses, etc. not being given a platform because we as a society recognize that they have no business being given a voice to express their horrid views. Today, the idea that you should defeat white supremacy by proving it wrong with hard facts is laughed at, because white supremacy doesn't exist without a desire to ignore those facts. The same thing with TERFs - proof positive that trans people are their appropriate gender is below their threshold for proof. They don't want to be proven wrong, they want to discriminate.
dead souls
Member
I have zero sympathy for someone dumb enough to keep stepping in it like Dawkins does. It's not that tough. If a prominent man is too stupid to realize that he shouldn't mansplain about what types of rape are worse, or try and defend certain types of pedophilia, or cite Breitbart in a case about a Muslim high school student, then he deserves all the criticism he gets and more.
Why exactly?
People are allowed to have opinions on things, even when they aren't experts on said things.
I didn't know people used this unironically.
Free speech is not the same as equal speech. Sometimes, your opinions are not as informed as others and it behoves you to shut up. The most obvious example would be something like a scientist versus an anti-vaxxer. More subtly is the issue of "mansplaining" (and derivatives, like 'cisplaining').
A Link to the Past
Banned
Fine, then he at no point in his life can ever complain about what happens when he says something stupid, or says something in a stupid way. You can't reserve the right to comment and then whine when your comments are rightfully torn apart. If I was Dawkins, I'd not be talking about these things, because I don't want the image Dawkins has to be on me. But that's me, not Dawkins.
And as tomtom94 says, the right to give comment on something doesn't mean that it's proper. Richard Dawkins has a very devote and sometimes radical following. When he whines about a non-white teenage boy, when he directly implies that a non-white child is not legitimately a child, he influences a lot of the people who listens to him. Any celebrity who actively undertakes dangerous viewpoints should be criticized for making influential, often incorrect comments about these subjects. Jim Carrey for instance - we don't need ignorant millionaire Canadians influencing people to believe the unproven myth of a link between autism and vaccines.
Dawkins, for whatever his faults, is about discussion and education. He's a debater and professor by trade. "Just shut up" shouldn't be a valid intellectual position to take on the opinions of another human being. Make a point about why they are wrong or immoral in their beliefs for the benefit of anyone else who listening.
This is the great issue with some internet liberals (and I consider my beliefs to be mostly liberal). They think those who are immoral or incorrect in their world-view should be silenced for the benefit of all. You're treating too many people like they're morons who can't be trusted with any degree of misinformation. There are always nuances, always more to learn.
The debate is always worthwhile.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I suppose the problem isn't the man who literally put quotations around the word kid to refer to a literal non-white child, who basically ranted about a 14-year-old kid getting media attention, it's that we respond to him saying shitty things by saying "Richard Dawkins says shitty things."
The debate is not worthwhile when one side is easily described as "has viewpoints that exist regardless of whether they reflect reality." People like Dawkins aren't interesting in admitting they're wrong, because people like Dawkins aren't in the business of being wrong. Dawkins is an atheist, an intelligent man. As such, his intelligence has him creating a synthesis between "I'm smart" and "I'm right." So when Dawkins is incorrect, he has no desire to address that issue.
The debate is not worthwhile when one side is easily described as "has viewpoints that exist regardless of whether they reflect reality." People like Dawkins aren't interesting in admitting they're wrong, because people like Dawkins aren't in the business of being wrong. Dawkins is an atheist, an intelligent man. As such, his intelligence has him creating a synthesis between "I'm smart" and "I'm right." So when Dawkins is incorrect, he has no desire to address that issue.
And yet it is a position he is willing to take with some of his critics. Kind of makes you wonder if he really practices what he
Perhaps I worded it wrong. My point is that sometimes, due to a lack of experience, your opinion is not going to contribute as much to a discussion as someone else's. To give the most crass example possible, a cis man is not going to understand the pain of giving birth, and therefore women would be well within their rights to ignore a cis man saying "it's probably not that painful really".
Citadelofmythoughts
Banned
Boss★Moogle;183078008 said:
Free speech doesn't mean you should be paid for the speech or be given a platform. It simply means no one can stop you from speaking. If she wants to stand in a park and give her speech for free, then she's welcome to do so. Hell, she's on the Internet, she can spew her poison 24 hours a day if she wishes.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Boss★Moogle;183078008 said:
Literally never has anyone deprived her of free speech. Don't come into this thread to simply make things up.
Your issue is you think the goal of a debate should be to change the mind of whom you're debating. That should never be the goal.
It's for your edification and the education of anyone who happens to be paying attention. Absolutists who feel that only one side of any argument is correct and the other is not worth debating or approaching, even the arguments that feel morally bankrupt or obviously corrupt, are maybe not worldly enough to censure ideas and concepts for the rest of us.
To use another example in this thread: the anti-vaxx movement. It existed before Jenny McCarthy and it will exist after her. Her role in bringing it into the public sphere has led to the public being educated on why you need to vaccinate your children. Her role in that movement has led to a large swell of support for legally mandated vaccinations.
Children may be healthier in the long run because she made her point and was discredited.
A Link to the Past
Banned
No, it is not for my education to debate people who rely on bigotry over facts.
Also, I feel a bit uneased by the idea that there could be merit to "this class of people are subhuman agree?"
BlastProcessing
Member
Boss★Moogle;183078008 said:
Would you like to pay for me to come over to your place and tell you why you're wrong? If you say no, then you are violating my free speech.
I would argue this absolutist viewpoint only holds you back.
Facts are facts but ideas are complicated. Even Germaine Greer's horrific, dehumanizing opinions on transgender men and women could lead to a greater understanding of how to communicate and counter people who are insensitive about these issues.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Nothing on the article suggested that the activists were specifically trying to bar her from speaking at the university. If anything by cancelling her own speech she is the one trying to avoid her opinions to be challenged by those that disagree with her.
charlequin
Banned
what planet do you live on where this is true
That doesn't count because young people are ruining this country by being oversensitive, or something.
Ugh, I swear, the greatest failing of the media over the last twenty years has been convincing people that opinions can never be wrong and that the truth is always "somewhere in the middle".
A Link to the Past
Banned
Trans people and trans allies have too much experience dealing with horrific, dehumanizing opinions on trans people. If Greer never says a word on it, the understanding of how to deal with people like her will be no different than what it was.
These people do not contribute anything. Giving them a platform "to be trounced upon" is not a good idea, and the only reason it flies with Greer is because the debate is out on trans people (not in the science mind you, just in people). Fred Phelps never spoke at universities, and it's not just because he was a creepy recluse.
In what way is it not?
You can do that on neogaf without anyone getting paid
Edit: if it wasn't for Jenny McCarthy, we'd have less vaccinated kids? what? what??
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
I don't believe in academic boycot of people we disagree with, but I'll never understand why blatantly reactionary anti-feminists insist on calling themselves feminists
Education and discourse has been the only legitimate cure for social inequity and civil rights throughout history.
If you want to pretend people like Greer do not exist, you will only fail to educate the people who are learning and developing their own moral and intellectual ideas about transgender men and women.
I only believe that by censoring the ideas and opinions of the incorrect, your censoring your rebuttal. Allowing Greer to be wrong and then correcting Greer on why she is wrong only arms people with a greater understanding of the issue. If you are on the right side of something, there is no reason not to engage in the discussion.
The entire idea that "giving her a platform to speak" is dangerous or wrong is fueled by the idea that people are idiots and you only legitimize her viewpoint with people by giving them the stage. Greer's viewpoint is already legitimate, bigots and opponents of transgender rights are already prevalent.
charlequin
Banned
That's fifteen years of precipitously lowered vaccination rates -- driven primarily by that resulted in outbreaks of preventable diseases and deaths of people who should have survived. It took until the last couple years to even bring the national rate back up to its previous level, and there are still significant enclaves of antivax sentiment that are producing outbreaks of major diseases today that didn't exist the same way in the past.
So, essentially, it's not true because the hysteria (created by Andrew Wakefield, but stoked by irresponsible public figures like McCarthy) had a significant, measurable negative effect, and inasmuch as it's true that it's been "discredited' all that accomplished was a reduction of that negative effect, not any type of new, higher plateau.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Okay, this is going in circles. Demonstrate to me the proven value of engaging with people who actively engage in hate speech. I want to see a study that shows that what you're saying is anything more than your take on life.
People simply do not have the energy to humour people like Greer, because people like Greer bother them day-in and day-out. Maybe you would understand if you were harassed by people who deliver the same message that Greer does every single day.
That's not what I said, nor is it what I implied in any way, shape or form.
At no point did I suggest Greer was entitled to speak. Only that discreding her is far better than censoring her.
Also, that's not exactly what I said RE: McCarthy and vaccinations.
The movement existed before she and others politicized it. It being discredited in the public has undoubtedly led to a greater understanding of why vaccinations are important and will perhaps lead to a legal mandate for vaccinations.
Does any of that happen without that discourse?
That's fifteen years of precipitously lowered vaccination rates -- driven primarily by that resulted in outbreaks of preventable diseases and deaths of people who should have survived. It took until the last couple years to even bring the national rate back up to its previous level, and there are still significant enclaves of antivax sentiment that are producing outbreaks of major diseases today that didn't exist the same way in the past.
So, essentially, it's not true because the hysteria (created by Andrew Wakefield, but stoked by irresponsible public figures like McCarthy) had a significant, measurable negative effect, and inasmuch as it's true that it's been "discredited' all that accomplished was a reduction of that negative effect, not any type of new, higher plateau.
I was just trying to find this.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey shutting up about things they don't know does well to prevent them from spreading incorrect information. You think highly of people who follow celebrities and their opinions if you think that a scientist saying "no Jim you're wrong" means anything to them.
That's fifteen years of precipitously lowered vaccination rates -- driven primarily by that resulted in outbreaks of preventable diseases and deaths of people who should have survived. It took until the last couple years to even bring the national rate back up to its previous level, and there are still significant enclaves of antivax sentiment that are producing outbreaks of major diseases today that didn't exist the same way in the past.
So, essentially, it's not true because the hysteria (created by Andrew Wakefield, but stoked by irresponsible public figures like McCarthy) had a significant, measurable negative effect, and inasmuch as it's true that it's been "discredited' all that accomplished was a reduction of that negative effect, not any type of new, higher plateau.
This only reinforces my point.
The movement existed before it's politicization by McCarthy and company. The reason the highest number on that chart is 2012 is because she and the movement were widely discredited in the public sphere.
I would suggest the number of vaccinations will only increase, maybe to near 100% as it moves towards being legally mandated. Does that happen if she doesn't bring this issue to the public and be discredited?
Without people spreading factually incorrect slander the vaccine rate never drops in the first place. Unless you're going to tell me that without the Wakefield ""study"" vaccine rates would have just casually dropped off of their own accord.
You realize why that number may be 100% or close into the far future, right?
You realize that the numbers never would have dropped if some idiots werent allowed to make a extreme misinformation campaign that put millions of lifes at risk, right?
It didn't influence one fucking bit that "the number might be 100% in the future". Guess what, it would be much closer to it of the idiotic antivaxx campaign never happened. All it did was setting things back.
She's not being censored. She's not being given a certain platform. No Big Brother is sending her to a reeducation camp. You only want to seem to use her to play devil's advocate but she's the devil in the scenario, not a source of tempering the strength of pro-trans rights arguments, but actively seeking to work against that.
You want very wrong people to say very wrong things to knock back progress so that we can maybe reclaim the territory and then some. But there's collateral damage before/if that ever happens.
We have presidential candidates now saying vaccines should be scrutinized because anti-vax was given a foothold and exploited it for all it's worth.
TatteredHat
Member
University students should be willing to confront and beat down these kinds of people's ideas with debate and discussion, it's a bit disappointing to see them react like this.
Nobody is going to argue that the Wakefield study was a good thing. There's nothing to be learned from fraudulent science.
I mean, don't mistake my point: It would be much better if the study never happened and the anti-vax movement never existed. But because it existed, much better to politicize it and discredit it and improve public policy because of it than allow for a percentage of people to fail to vaccinate for decades on end, due to a lack of education.
It wasn't 100% or really even that close before the anti-vaxx movement. Many parents now better understand the dangers of faling to vaccinate, thanks to that discourse.
Objectively, hundreds of millions of children are more likely to be vaccinated in the future than they would have been if this never happened. Far more than were not vaccinated during the last decade plus.
They did confront her, she bailed.
Reading into your logic, only a few thousand more trans people need to die before we take trans rights seriously.
It's for the greater good! Eventually!
No, because I believe the education and discourse is the fastest route a world that is behind transgender rights.
- Status