Richard Dawkins tells students upset by Germaine Greer to ‘go home and hug a teddy’

Status
Not open for further replies.
Edit: For those thinking it's appropriate to give Greer a platform at a university, would you have a similar response to David Duke being given forum in the same venue?
Sure. He can come talk. Then people can either stay away or show up and argue with him.
 
Hm2b0Eb.jpg

I think the two scenarios are different. This is him protesting the awarding of some honorary something or other, less him asking he not be allowed to speak. He's actually inviting the University of Vermont to hear both sides and determine whether or not he's worth of the honors being awarded to him.

Not to seem like a double Dawkins defender in this thread.
 

Everyone calling Dawkins a hypocrite apparently doesn't understand, or want to understand, the difference in context between this and supporting someone's right to speak.

Greer was going to be there for an open discussion/debate. This would allow people to question and argue with her if they so choose, as he suggests. It's also not mandatory for people to show up to the talk if they don't want to.

This letter was him complaining about someone giving a commencement speech, essentially having free reign to say whatever the fuck he wants without anyone questioning him. You HAVE to go to this, you don't have the choice. On top of giving them an honorary degree, which WOULD be a direct endorsement by the University, rather than the "implicit" endorsement people were trying to argue for Greer.

There is a difference.
 
Honestly, I don't get the point of chastising the students for protesting. Why can't they? Those are horrible things to say.

They are mad that someone contested their bigoted ideas and used a horrible double standard to attempt to look victimized. They are just mad that the university wasn't a safer space.
 
If you've paid any attention to Richard Dawkins in recent times, it's basically his new hobby.
Sure, but I feel like there's a lot of people who agree with him, even in this thread.

The students are exercising their free speech and protesting. What's the harm? That's not needing to "hug a teddy," that's being pissed off at bullshit. I marched against W's Iraq War when I was that age and I'm proud of it.

Similarly I fully support his chastising letter to the University of Vermont re: inviting the creationist. He can make those protests too. Especially inviting that jerkoff to be a commencement speaker, jeez.

Anybody can protest anything they want, how is that hard to understand?
 
There is a significant different between a despicable opinion and flat-out lying and deception. Ben Stein falls into the latter category. He purposefully deceived people when he was making his film, and he is deliberately lying in order to push an agenda. He is not interested in having an honest conversation. But universities are places for having conversations and criticizing all sorts of opinions, not for giving deliberate and dishonest liars a platform.
We have movement. I've localized it to the base of the goal posts.
 
Has anyone pointed out she wasn't censored and willfully cancelled herself? Is now playing the victim and receiving loads of attention and sympathy? The students were well within their right to protest her, what she wants isn't freespeech, she wants freedom of consequence.

Seriously. What the hell are people even talking about here. People protested, rightfully so, and she decided not to show her face. Boo hoo.
 
neither is a case of free speech

Well yes, this Greer situation isn't a case of free speech since she voluntarily withdrew, but Dawkins general point appears to be allowing of speech even if you disagree and not preventing any dissenting opinions from appearing.

The letter above does not contradict his opinion, as it's a case of not wanting Stein to be honored.
 
Everyone calling Dawkins a hypocrite apparently doesn't understand, or want to understand, the difference in context between this and supporting someone's right to speak.

Greer was going to be there for an open discussion/debate. This would allow people to question and argue with her if they so choose, as he suggests. It's also not mandatory for people to show up to the talk if they don't want to.

This letter was him complaining about someone giving a commencement speech, essentially having free reign to say whatever the fuck he wants without anyone questioning him. You HAVE to go to this, you don't have the choice.

There is a difference.

And it's not mandatory Greer gets paid for showing up.
 
I feel as though you're naive if you think this supposed debate would have made a huge difference, if even her transphobia was brought up.
A debate shouldn't always have the goal of convincing the other person they're wrong and you're right. As long as one of the two comes out with a wider view of the world then good has happened.

OKay. Time to play the devil a bit more, but a commencement speech seems a bit different, no? Greer is an issue of censorship. Is it censorship to ask for this university to pull an invite to Ben Stein though? You don't have discussions in a commencement speech. The crowd doesn't have a QA session at the end. Debate isn't had. I know I'm walking a fine line, but come on. Someone argue because I genuinely want to know if I'm crazy.

*LATER*
OKay...glad to see I'm not only one who sees a difference.
 
Dawkins is right. This lady sounds like first class jackass, but she's still entitled to have her opinions, and still has the right to discuss them. Anyone who doesn't want to hear should stay away, they don't have the right to silence her. Silencing people whose opinions you don't like is not what a free and equal society is about; there's no place for that.
She's entitled to have opinions and to discuss them.

She's not fucking entitled to be paid for it..

She also withdrew herself anyways, nobody actually stopped her.
I dont think you know what "silencing" means.



Also, at the "engage in debate " guys: what debate was going to take place exactly? A speaker going to speak about stuff and answering a couple of questions is not a debate. Thats not how debates work.
 
I seriously admire the belief in here that "great debate" leads to progress and enlightenment, as everyone will latch on to truth and justice presented to them.
 
There is a significant different between a despicable opinion and flat-out lying and deception. Ben Stein falls into the latter category, and universities are places for criticizing all sorts of opinions, not for giving deliberate and dishonest liars a platform.

I think there is some clarification that Dawkin's needs to make on this. He obviously made clear his opinion that Ben Stein -shouldn't- get an honorary degree or make a commencement speech. And in this case, he made clear that he thinks that students should - rather than protest to try and remove a speaker, engage speakers they disagree with. For the sake of consistency, he needs to square this. If his opinion has changed in the last 6 years (it might have) it would be good to know. If he thinks that this specific case is different, he should explain why. In the end, my opinion is that protesting isn't wrong, but it's better to challenge than to try and prevent bad opinions from being spoken.
 
Looks like someone needs to go home and hug a teddy bear.
This is from 6 years ago - I wonder if confronted with this, whether or not he would defend it or say that it was the correct action. If the latter, it would be extremely hypocritical.



At most, it means that Dawkin's is a hypocrite - but if a smoker says that smoking is bad, it doesn't mean that it's suddenly good.
He's old as hell. Six years isn't a long time for him. If he doesn't defend it, it's only because of what he said today.
 
We have movement. I've localized it to the base of the goal posts.

Please kindly point to where I am supposed to have moved goalposts. Or have you just waited for an opportunity to drop a knee-jerk attack regardless of what people actually argue?
 
I think there is some clarification that Dawkin's needs to make on this. He obviously made clear his opinion that Ben Stein -shouldn't- get an honorary degree or make a commencement speech. And in this case, he made clear that he thinks that students should - rather than protest to try and remove a speaker, engage speakers they disagree with. For the sake of consistency, he needs to square this. If his opinion has changed in the last 6 years (it might have) it would be good to know. If he thinks that this specific case is different, he should explain why. In the end, my opinion is that protesting isn't wrong, but it's better to challenge than to try and prevent bad opinions from being spoken.

A commencement speech is very different from a lecture. This isn't showing any inconsistency at all.
 
The irony of attacking a Dawkins statement from 6 years ago and not the point he is making is almost too much.

Dawkins is a cunt but if you're not willing to debate a point and try to silence it instead... well, good luck with that but you might want to check how that has worked in history before you attempt it. Let her speak and let people tear her beliefs apart. Can't be worse than the current great divide where two sides refuse to debate each other and nothing actually changes.
 
They are mad that someone contested their bigoted ideas and used a horrible double standard to attempt to look victimized. They are just mad that the university wasn't a safer space.
I didn't sleep all that great today but I must confess that I can't resolve the "they" pronoun in this case. People who agree with Dawkins, or the student protestors?
 
A debate shouldn't always have the goal of convincing the other person they're wrong and you're right. As long as one of the two comes out with a wider view of the world then good has happened.


OKay. Time to play the devil a bit more, but a commencement speech seems a bit different, no? Greer is an issue of censorship. Is it censorship to ask for this university to pull an invite to Ben Stein though? You don't have discussions in a commencement speech. The crowd doesn't have a QA session at the end. Debate isn't had. I know I'm walking a fine line, but come on. Someone argue because I genuinely want to know if I'm crazy.

Everyone calling Dawkins a hypocrite apparently doesn't understand, or want to understand, the difference in context between this and supporting someone's right to speak.

Greer was going to be there for an open discussion/debate. This would allow people to question and argue with her if they so choose, as he suggests. It's also not mandatory for people to show up to the talk if they don't want to.

This letter was him complaining about someone giving a commencement speech, essentially having free reign to say whatever the fuck he wants without anyone questioning him. You HAVE to go to this, you don't have the choice. On top of giving them an honorary degree, which WOULD be a direct endorsement by the University, rather than the "implicit" endorsement people were trying to argue for Greer.

There is a difference.
But the #rekt train has started. It's too late to back out. Context doesn't matter.

*eyeroll*
 
Everyone calling Dawkins a hypocrite apparently doesn't understand, or want to understand, the difference in context between this and supporting someone's right to speak.

Greer was going to be there for an open discussion/debate. This would allow people to question and argue with her if they so choose, as he suggests. It's also not mandatory for people to show up to the talk if they don't want to.

This letter was him complaining about someone giving a commencement speech, essentially having free reign to say whatever the fuck he wants without anyone questioning him. You HAVE to go to this, you don't have the choice. On top of giving them an honorary degree, which WOULD be a direct endorsement by the University, rather than the "implicit" endorsement people were trying to argue for Greer.

There is a difference.
Sounds like every university talk that I've been to. And no, the short "Q&A" at the end does not count.
 

A commencement speech + honorary degree is very different than a speaker on campus. First of all, people are expected to go to a graduation ceremony. Obviously. Second of all, it isn't a debate or talk where students can ask questions. And the university itself is honoring the man.
 
Oh boo hoo, a transphobe can't go spew her shit someplace where people would call her out.

The things people decide to defend, I swear...
 
Well yes, this Greer situation isn't a case of free speech since she voluntarily withdrew, but Dawkins general point appears to be allowing of speech even if you disagree and not preventing any dissenting opinions from appearing.

The letter above does not contradict his opinion, as it's a case of not wanting Stein to be honored.

What about the free speech of students? They didn't want her to come and they didn't want their tuition fee money to go towards a known bigot.
 
I'm still confused where the notion that this is some sort of grand old open debate on Greer's views.

Wasn't she basically gonna give a one sided lecture with a Q&A at the end of it?

Sounds like every university talk that I've been to. And no, the short "Q&A" at the end does not count.

I know right? Where are people getting the idea that this would be some sort of epic battle of ideas?
 
I seriously admire the belief in here that "great debate" leads to progress and enlightenment, as everyone will latch on to truth and justice presented to them.
Again---that isn't the point. There would be a huge room full of people. Of differing opinions. Everyone seems so focused on convincing Greer she is wrong. But what if by speaking up you convince other people in the room? And hell, you don't even have to convince them completely. As long as someone leaves thinking a bit differently of the world then great. Making someone change their whole thought process and beliefs is not the goal.
 
Also, you're aren't changing this woman's mind, so miss me with that debate shit.

It's not about directly challenging her words, but to add counterpoint to them for the benefit of the people in attendance. You may not be able to change her mind, but it's entirely possible to inform those who came to the lecture uninformed.
 
Also, you're aren't changing this woman's mind, so miss me with that debate shit. She would be getting paid though (and AGAIN, SHE CANCELLED)

It's not about changing her mind. It's about changing the audiences mind. I've debated enough times with people on GAF about topics and maybe have changed their minds SOMETIMES. But plenty have messaged me over the years and told me the stuff I said about X or Y have helped to form their current opinion.
 
I didn't sleep all that great today but I must confess that I can't resolve the "they" pronoun in this case. People who agree with Dawkins, or the student protestors?

Sorry, I was referring to Dawkins and Greer. Dawkins is right in what he says but he fails to realize that it ultimately applies to both parties.
 
University of Columbia allowed friggin Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to give a speech, despite Iran's views of women and homosexuals and denying the Holocaust.

Sorry, but Dawkins is in the right here, no ifs or buts.
 
the protestors are way over dignifying shitty opinions with a "debate". people showed up, expressed their ~free speech~ and criticized her fuckery. and she backed out. apparently the debate space wasn't safe enough for greer. haha
 
The irony of attacking a Dawkins statement from 6 years ago and not the point he is making is almost too much.

Dawkins is a cunt but if you're not willing to debate a point and try to silence it instead... well, good luck with that but you might want to check how that has worked in history before you attempt it. Let her speak and let people tear her beliefs apart. Can't be worse than the current great divide where two sides refuse to debate each other and nothing actually changes.

So we also need to invite people who think Israel and the US orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and people who think that racial segregation is a good thing? Pay these idiots money and invite them into our universities because debate is oh so important?

Screw that nonsense.
 
It's not about changing her mind. It's about changing the audiences mind. I've debated enough times with people on GAF about topics and maybe have changed their minds SOMETIMES. But plenty have messaged me over the years and told me the stuff I said about X or Y have helped to form their current opinion.

Well, apparently she didn't actually wanna be challenged in the end, because she cancelled the damn gig. Sad, one less forum for an asshole to be publicly heard.
 
Research. Talking to the people involved. Stage debates aren't really about finding the truth, just look at any debate and how a bunch of errors are listed after it's ended.

But what compels research? If no one feels that their opinion is being challenged, why research anything?
 
University of Columbia allowed friggin Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to give a speech, despite Iran's views of women and homosexuals and denying the Holocaust.

Sorry, but Dawkins is in the right here, no ifs or buts.

There's a difference between a former word leader and a random hater.
 
I wonder if people would still be on Dawkin's side if it were someone from the westboro baptist church speaking instead. Hmm

Personally, I would have loved to see a debate between somebody from Westboro Church and somebody the likes of Christopher Hitchens.

Broadcast that shit on national television. It would have been educational and glorious.
 
Personally, I would have loved to see a debate between somebody from Westboro Church and somebody the likes of Christopher Hitchens.

Broadcast that shit on national television. It would have been educational and glorious.
Oh god. It would be straight up murder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom