Ah, Richard Dawkins. Brilliant polemicist, fearless challenger of the honored role given to religion in modern society, tireless crusader for rationality and science against the forces of ignorance and superstition. And a man who should have left well enough alone. Because now he’s gone and kicked over a hornet’s nest in the otherwise-happy world of the atheist-skeptic-rationalist-etc. community and damaged his credibility as a feminist. Go ahead. Read all about it. Did the Skepchick blow the event of having to fend off an awkward pass at four in the morning out of propotion? That seems like a reasonable enough probability. Was Dawkins out of line with his response? Definitely. You’ve seen miscommunications and missed points escalate into feuds in other contexts, so enjoy it in the world of nonbelief. We nonbelievers are no better than the rest of you; here’s your proof. We nonbelievers get our dirty laundry aired out for the general public to point and laugh, just like everyone else. Or, if your reaction is like mine, to shake your head sadly and wonder how people can get so overwrought and self-serious.
8 Comments
Comments are closed.
“white people problems”, like “that’s racist!”, is a pretty common response these days on troll boards.
I remember an extreme example on Something Awful where, for a while, anyone who wrote a post complaining about something in their life had to explain why their problems were more significant than the problems of a starving orphan in Darfur. If you didn’t do this to a mod’s satisfaction you were banned and had to pay ten dollars to be allowed to post again.
While what he said wasn’t exactly succint and liberally fashionable, every point made by Dawkins was true. Man hating feminists seem to think that every man is a serial rapist, waiting for the moment to strike. All Dawkins was saying is that there are women out there whose lives are made truly horrible by men, and Skepchick (Rebecca Watson if my memory is correct) is not one of these women.
Yeah, but she never said she is. Had she claimed something like that, Dawkins’s post would have made a lot more sense.
You’d think that Dawkins would be better at avoiding religious discussions.
Actually, in a followup comment, Dawkins defends the elevator incident as being no worse than what PZ Myers did to the communion host. So
1. Dawkins has no gift for avoiding religious arguments, and
2. His understanding of human interactions is somewhere between Asperger’s and sociopathic.
He should be a Libertarian.
He’s not that bad.