(April 22, 2021 at 9:04 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: 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.

I mean you say empirically wrong but how?
What can you point to and go "Nope. Wrong. Heres the evidence to prove its factually wrong. Bam. Slam-dunk."

Just seeing this topic now.

The AHA can take back their award if they like. Humanism is not about beliefs, but about valuing particular ways of interacting. Humanism intersects politics and religion.

Dawkins is very tone-deaf to political correctness. He is probably on the autism spectrum. That said, he is also brilliant, and some of his non-politically-correct comments are valid topics for discussion -- if there weren't an internet mob waiting to cancel you at the first misstep.

I understand the backlash for this particular one, but comparing someone identifying as black to someone identifying as a different sex -- both in defiance of their genetics, is an interesting topic -- not because there is anything bad about being trans. It is just that why is it bad for someone to identify as black?

And yet, one is now normal, and the other is evil, according to the current left-wing. Why is it wrong to bring up the cognitive dissonance around that? I can actually come up with reasons why they are different, but I can also come up with a reason why someone might truly identify with black culture and feel that their personal identity is as a black person. It may be rare, but so is being trans.

Cancel culture is about power, not logic or truth. If I posted this under my own identity, I would be cancelled for this post. Cancel culture is just the religious moral-majority for the left.

Dolezal wasn't vilified for identifying as black anymore than dawkins is being vilified for saying a thing about chromosomes or genitals, and any comparison of either of these events in mere reality will demonstrate that they are not only different from the description dawkins gave, but different from each other, as well.

If we're talking about cancel culture, no one is cancelling dawkins. People do, however, very dearly wish to cancel trans people, and any other number of people. The problem isn't so much that cancel culture isn't a big orwellian issue, as vulcan suggested earlier, but that left wing cancel culture isn't. Right wing cancel culture is the very thing that right wingers wrings their hands over, while left wing cancel culture appears to be self censure, voting with a wallet, or simply not liking a product or post.

---

(April 22, 2021 at 9:09 am)Reforged Wrote:

(April 22, 2021 at 9:04 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: 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.

I mean you say empirically wrong but how?
What can you point to and go "Nope. Wrong. Heres the evidence to prove its factually wrong. Bam. Slam-dunk."

In precisely the manner I've been describing this entire time, and describe again above. You could find plenty of others, dawkins has been a whitmans sampler of how to step on rakes over the course of his career. Doesn't really take away from anything related to his being a biologist, it's just another concurrent truth.

vwithdrawing an award given for past accomplishment in retaliation for future divergence of views and opinion seems to be the very caricature of narrow minded hast to resort to ostracism and retroactive denial that has been called the cancel culture.

I don't know, seems like dawkins is speaking and being heard, to me. The things he's saying don't square with his association to the aha. It's not exactly unheard of for an organization to rescind a distinction on future conduct or discovery.

Just ask Michael Phelps, poor guy smoked some weed.

(April 22, 2021 at 11:58 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I don't know, seems like dawkins is speaking and being heard, to me.  The things he's saying don't square with his association to the aha.  It's not exactly unheard of for an organization to rescind a distinction on future conduct.

I think in Most cases the cancel culture is not effective in ostracizing those it’s practitioners seeks to cancel from the larger society.  In most cases, it serves mainly to narrow the group doing the canceling by widening the distance between itself and those it seeks to cancel.   Therefore it tends to be the favorite resort of the short of sight, narrow of view, and autocratic in temperament, and who are overfixated on a single issue or view.

(April 22, 2021 at 11:35 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Dolezal wasn't vilified for identifying as black anymore than dawkins is being vilified for saying a thing about chromosomes or genitals, and any comparison of either of these events in mere reality will demonstrate that they are not only different from the description dawkins gave, but different from each other, as well.

If we're talking about cancel culture, no one is cancelling dawkins.  People do, however, very dearly wish to cancel trans people, and any other number of people.  The problem isn't so much that cancel culture isn't a big orwellian issue, as vulcan suggested earlier, but that left wing cancel culture isn't.  Right wing cancel culture is the very thing that right wingers wrings their hands over, while left wing cancel culture appears to be self censure, voting with a wallet, or simply not liking a product or post.

---

(April 22, 2021 at 9:09 am)Reforged Wrote: I mean you say empirically wrong but how?
What can you point to and go "Nope. Wrong. Heres the evidence to prove its factually wrong. Bam. Slam-dunk."

In precisely the manner I've been describing this entire time, and describe again above.  You could find plenty of others, dawkins has been a whitmans sampler of how to step on rakes over the course of his career.  Doesn't really take away from anything related to his being a biologist, it's just another concurrent truth.

ooooook, didn't spot that. You're taking a partisan stance on cancel culture? Seriously? Both wings of cancel culture are flapping all over the place. The main difference is that the left wing has been so dominant in social media and media ingeneral as of late that its started devouring itself. You can't be left enough. Right wing cancel culture isn't good either, don't get me wrong but the suggestion they're not both putting their grubby mitts all over the place is absurd. The only rational response is to tell the mob to fuck off, regardless of what side of the aisle it lies. 

Side-note; I don't know about orwellian but I've noticed some cultural vandalism happening on the altar of ideology. I didn't realize how much I liked star trek till it got turned from a utopian vision of the future where mankind had grown past their differences into a dystopian vision of the present filled with sociopathic violence where everyone hates each other because some asshole decided he wanted to preach at the expense of a well written narrative. And yeah, there was always some sort of message but it never disrupted narrative, it was never down your throat and it tried to do it in a clever, veiled sort of way. Example; it was never humanity suffering from bigotry because it had grown past it, it was humanity attempting to help another species grow past it. The original Star Trek had the first inter-racial kiss ever on tv, gender neutrality, trans-genderism and it worked because it wasn't forced and they didn't sing about it asking for praise. They just did it.
So I guess my point here is that sure, right wing have cancel culture but its nowhere near as effective at canceling trans-rights as the left wing are with their own self-sabotage. With a typical heavy handedness that seems to be turned toward everything now the perfect vehicle to easily impart values to a new generation has been destroyed; a cultures imagination and its hope for a brighter tomorrow. 
Thats really what all cancel culture boils down to. "Fuck everything, tear it all down". Its not thought out enough to be orwellian, its the most effortless, chicken shit way to approach change and it doesn't work.

And now I think about it thats actually my main objection. "We took away his award, we made a difference. Yay us." Its not some sort of choice made from conscience, its a low-effort bitch move to appease a mob who will ultimately stop caring the moment they get their way and move onto the next target to raise their self-esteem. 
The adult thing to do would be to go "whoops", realize noones perfect and give an award to someone else. When Francis Collins started gibbering about frozen waterfalls like a lunatic noone tackled him to the ground and stole his awards. Why? Because thats childish.

More that I'm making an observation. I don't pull the lever for the left or the right.

Anywho, I doubt that the aha thinks they made a huge difference by publicly announcing their split. It was still something that they felt compelled to do, however small. The journey of a thousand steps, and all that happy nonsense. No one tackled dawkins to the ground and took a thing from him, either, so.....

OTOH, the thing that the aha is concerned with, is very much an issue where a person could be tackled to the ground and have something forcibly removed from them. Like their simple human dignity, for the offense of using the wrong bathroom. The left is trying to cancel assholes - in the most cynical appraisal - the right is hoping to cancel people..in the most generous.

As a correction, everything in star trek was forced, it was a vehicle for an ideology, explicitly. The production of that show wasn;t entirely unlike the production of the aha..and what do you think gene (or, now, cbs) would have thought if william shatner started yammering about jews or homosexuals like an asshole? Just wouldn't shut up about it.

(April 22, 2021 at 1:22 pm)Reforged Wrote: So I guess my point here is that sure, right wing have cancel culture but its nowhere near as effective at canceling trans-rights as the left wing are with their own self-sabotage.

Bill Maher has made similar points on his show.  Left-wing cancel culture eats its own for not being pure enough.  The right really doesn't care what the left says about it.

(April 22, 2021 at 1:24 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: More that I'm making an observation.  I don't pull the lever for the left or the right.  

Anywho, I doubt that the aha thinks they made a huge difference by publicly announcing their split.  It was still something that they felt compelled to do, however small.  The journey of a thousand steps, and all that happy nonsense.  No one tackled dawkins to the ground and took a thing from him, either, so.....

OTOH, the thing that the aha is concerned with, is very much an issue where a person could be tackled to the ground and have something forcibly removed from them.  Like their simple human dignity, for the offense of using the wrong bathroom.  The left is trying to cancel assholes - in the most cynical appraisal - the right is hoping to cancel people..in the most generous.

Are you under the impression Dawkins was suggesting this course of action?
Also, what bathroom is the right bathroom? I'm being serious.
Are we talking third bathroom or anyone with a penis who says they identify as a woman wandering in or what? 
Is there even a consensus on this?
Heres my guess; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s88r_q7oufE