RE: Dawkins loses humanist title
April 22, 2021 at 11:35 am
(This post was last modified: April 22, 2021 at 11:41 am by The Grand Nudger.)
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.
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.
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.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
