No worries. Just another opinion added to the pile in that case. Look at us, freethinking and shit.

(April 22, 2021 at 8:34 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(April 22, 2021 at 8:18 am)Reforged Wrote: But that doesn't stop an ideology forcing people to conform to what they say reality is. Stalinism springs to mind. 

(my bold)

Where are the humanist gulags? I don't think anyone is forcing people to conform to anything here. The AHA making this determination is bound to start a discussion on the issue (which it has here and elsewhere). Stalinism was about ending discussions... or making them "disappear"...

I think we need to be realistic about the level of coercion going on here. Stalinism doesn't come to mind. I think the more defensible thesis is: there is a nonzero amount of coercion going on.

That's what I hate about the cancel culture debate. It's so overblown. There is no Orwellian empire pulling the strings here. It's a bunch of people running their mouths on the internet. If I were to dispense any bit of advice to cancel culture opponents, it'd be to stop taking it so seriously. It's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. Is it beyond reproach? Certainly not. So let's take the conversation from there...

There are degrees of force and different types. This is the use of social pressure to discredit.
Come on now, you know I wasn't implying gulags. The analogy was concerned solely with the use of truth as a malleable construct to be molded by those with power.
Not all power comes from the barrel of a gun.

No one forced him to say what he did, and what he's said has discredited him. Perhaps not as a biologist, but with respect to the aha mission and values? Demonstrably, objectively, empirically so.

You probably don't have it exactly right with the notion of malleable truth , in their case, either. They certainly don't believe that the articles of humanism are only malleably true. They believe that they are true no matter what the facts of some other thing may be. A biological male may be biologically male, and so what if they are? Humanism is about their humanity, not their chromosomes or genitals.

(April 22, 2021 at 8:36 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: No worries.  Just another opinion added to the pile in that case.  Look at us, freethinking and shit.  

For now. Pray none of us gets an award.

(April 22, 2021 at 8:38 am)Reforged Wrote:

(April 22, 2021 at 8:34 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: (my bold)

Where are the humanist gulags? I don't think anyone is forcing people to conform to anything here. The AHA making this determination is bound to start a discussion on the issue (which it has here and elsewhere). Stalinism was about ending discussions... or making them "disappear"...

I think we need to be realistic about the level of coercion going on here. Stalinism doesn't come to mind. I think the more defensible thesis is: there is a nonzero amount of coercion going on.

That's what I hate about the cancel culture debate. It's so overblown. There is no Orwellian empire pulling the strings here. It's a bunch of people running their mouths on the internet. If I were to dispense any bit of advice to cancel culture opponents, it'd be to stop taking it so seriously. It's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. Is it beyond reproach? Certainly not. So let's take the conversation from there...

There are degrees of force and different types. This is the use of social pressure to discredit.
Come on now, you know I wasn't implying gulags. The analogy was concerned solely with the use of truth as a malleable construct to be molded by those with power.
Not all power comes from the barrel of a gun.

"And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his throne erected within you is destroyed.

For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom and a shame in their own pride?"

--Kahlil Gibran

No matter how "successful" one is, or how famous they become, friend or foe, they will never be remembered in the scope of 14 billion years that have passed or the billions of years that will certianly leave our species, and all life, and our planet in the dustbin of time.

(April 22, 2021 at 8:39 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: No one forced him to say what he did, and what he's said has discredited him.  Perhaps not as a biologist, but with respect to the aha mission and values?  Demonstrably, objectively, empirically so.

No but social pressure was exerted as a consequence by an organisation with pull. That organisation did it in the name of humanism, his goals didn't align with their definition of humanism. They declared as such and stripped him of that award. Thats a powerful message "Shut up and nod along with us". It would be like if the big dong commission said I no longer measured up to their standards and took away my award for debating the value of circumcision. 

I mean, hes said *alot* of things. What specifically do you think discredited him?

Their message wasn't shut up and nod with us? Their message was that dawkins doesn't represent the organization and their association with him through the award was not appropriate.

In this case, we're discussing the tweet that was the proverbial straw for the aha - but you can do a simple google search to see how many times he's managed to wade into things like this. Mind you, it's not a criticism of the things he's espoused, and I agree with some of the positions he takes which the aha and other groups have strongly and consistently groaned about. I doubt that he's crying in his milk over the loss, but the aha actually does have to take flak for that association and it is important to them to get it right, and not for nothing, but they're going to have to replace him now to keep doing what they do. From an organizational pov, it's a goddamned nightmare.

Kind Old Uncle Rick has one sip of the haterade and this is the result, and they've been fluffing him since 96.

The big dong commission can do whatever they want with big dong awards. It's their big dong.

(April 22, 2021 at 8:49 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Their message wasn't shut up and nod with us?  Their message was that dawkins doesn't represent the organization and their association with him through the award was not appropriate.  

In this case, we're discussing the tweet that was the proverbial straw for the aha - but you can do a simple google search to see how many times he's managed to wade into things like this.  Mind you, it's not a criticism of the things he's espoused, and I agree with some of the positions he takes which the aha and other groups have strongly and consistently groaned about.  I  doubt that he's crying in his milk over the loss, but the aha actually does have to take flak for that association and it is important to them to get it right, and not for nothing, but they're going to have to replace him now to keep doing what they do.  From an organizational pov, it's a goddamned nightmare.

Kind Old Uncle Rick has one sip of the haterade and this is the result, and they've been fluffing him since 96.

Honestly, I never really saw him say anything that could make someone offended who wasn't looking to be offended.
I just found one which said "stranger rape at knifepoint is worse than date rape". Which... I mean, weird thing to get hung up on but yes, I suppose it would be. I've never really thought about it.

He says all sorts of shit that might offend people who aren't looking to be offended. I mean, part of that is down to how people tend to get offended by things whether they want to be offended by them or not.

OFC, he's not being taken to task for being offensive, so much as being empirically and ideologically wrong in a manner that makes a continued association with the aha untenable.