Dawkins loses humanist title

[The Grand Nudger]

Apparently, he managed to hit the number of flippant twitter posts +1 - as they explained.

While questioning everything may be the point of being a freethinker, it's not the point of humanism. Humanism has non negotiable articles which are in no way determined by any biological fact or even any fact of reality as it is.

To put it another way, it very much seems that people are expressing an issue with humanism. Specifically with the aha as it's main goal is to advocate for humanism - the aha doesn't sex chickens. The concern seems to be that the aha is advancing something that isn't true - but that's exactly what humanism (or any ideology) does. Advance and advocate for a set of principles or a state of affairs which may not be true, yet, but should be - at least from the pov of it's adherents.

Steeping in the pile of dolezal dogshit and smearing that right on the rug of trans issues was idiotic, especially for such a smart guy. He'll make clarifications, offer retractions, as he has before, and the aha has mentioned that they no longer believe that these clarifications and retractions are earnest. He's built a pattern of behavior. We can, if we like (and to short circuit any and all debate over the notion), imagine that this pattern of behavior and these comments are wholly and completely supported by nothing but facts, and every one of them is relevant - but it wouldn't matter. A connection and distinction with and for a person who says a bunch of true shit antithetical to the values of an ideological association is a problem for the ideological association all the same.

[Reforged]

Apparently, he managed to hit the number of flippant twitter posts +1 - as they explained.  

While questioning everything may be the point of being a freethinker, it's not the point of humanism.  Humanism has non negotiable articles which are in no way determined by any biological fact or even any fact of reality as it is.

Then I don't know how they dress themselves much less formulate ideals.
The discerning and acceptance of empirical fact is vital not just to being human but being rational.
You can not have a functioning moral framework without rationality and a grounded understanding of the reality around you.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ranging far and wide in our efforts to figure out exactly what we think the aha did wrong, I think. Perhaps you had arational or irrational ideas about what humanism is and entails, and what the aha's responsibilities were pursuant to their goal of advocating for humanism?

How, then, would you be able to make a functional moral declaration of what they did, if - as you've just insisted, rationality and an understanding of reality around you is a requirement - and you're not in possession of it? You don't appear to understand how ideology works, you don't appear to understand the issue they have with dawkins comments, you don't even know how they dress themselves in the morning...and you're pretty upfront about that, right?

Tell me how you could determine, rationally, that they got this wrong, if you don't know that? Even more needlingly, do you think that any conflict between rationality and humanism (real or imagined), to a humanist, will privilege rationality?

[vulcanlogician]

Steeping in the pile of dolezal dogshit and smearing that right on the rug of trans issues was idiotic, especially for such a smart guy.  He'll make clarifications, offer retractions, as he has before, and the aha has mentioned that they no longer believe that these clarifications and retractions are earnest.  He's built a pattern of behavior.  

Agreed. I perused some of Dawkins twitterings and noticed the patterns you're talking about.

But still, I've not really found anything too offensive. The Dolezal thing is the worst of what I read.

I'm also agreeing with some of his criticisms. An advocacy group wanted to remove a statue of Charles Darwin from a museum because his research was done on the colonized Galapagos Islands. Does this comment count as a strike against his humanism? Because it shouldn't. Had Charles Darwin been instrumental in colonization or something, that would be a different issue. But, as far as I understand, he wasn't. He did some historically significant science there. That's the reason for the statue. I agree with Dawkins on this.

I think the heart of the issue is: are freethinking and humanism really separate or mutually exclusive enterprises? I'd like to think that they aren't, and that (perhaps) freethinking leads to humanism most of the time. Asking tough-- even unpopular-- questions isn't really an indicator of one's commitment to the welfare of human beings.

[The Grand Nudger]

We can agree with a persons criticism, and those criticisms can be accurate - and they might still be an issue for humanist ideology. I think that dawkins take on religious thinking is descriptive, but it's not a kosher take for humanism.

Freethinking questions is a term of art. Race realists and gender realists are asking freethinking questions, if you ask them. Yes, freethinking can be an exclusive enterprise to humanism in any state of affairs in which reality as it is or how it's asserted to be does not conform to reality as humanism asserts it should be. That's a feature, not a bug, imo.

Freethinking does not lead to humanism - humanism leads to humanism - it's the assertion that things should be some way - a beginning, a set of axioms, not a conclusion or product or, simply put, The Way Things Are™.

a philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms the ability and responsibility of human beings to lead personal lives of ethical fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

https://web.archive.org/web/201006122114...t_Humanism

Is dawkins living up to that responsibility in his comments? Notice the question is not whether he's living up to freethought, or whether we agree or disagree with this or any other thing he's said, or whether biological males are biologically male.

[Reforged]

Ranging far and wide in our efforts to figure out exactly what we think the aha did wrong, I think.  Perhaps you had arational or irrational ideas about what humanism is and entails, and what the aha's responsibilities were pursuant to their goal of advocating for humanism?

How, then, would you be able to make a functional moral declaration of what they did, if - as you've just insisted, rationality and an understanding of reality around you is a requirement - and you're not in possession of it?  You don't appear to understand how ideology works, you don't appear to understand the issue they have with dawkins comments, you don't even know how they dress themselves in the morning...and you're pretty upfront about that, right?

Tell me how you could determine, rationally, that they got this wrong, if you don't know that?  Even more needlingly, do you think that any conflict between rationality and humanism (real or imagined), to a humanist, will privilege rationality?

I think without the discussion any claims to either rationality or humanism are hollow.
It is a discussion of what is empirically true versus who we identify as that Dawkins called for and it is what he was punished for.
You are having a discussion about contentious topics right now, should you be denounced by humanists for it?
I would suggest not. I would suggest any honest and open discussion of the facts is an act of humans for humans to the benefit of humans.
If you see conflict there then I honestly cannot help you.

[vulcanlogician]

We can agree with a persons criticism, and those criticisms can be accurate - and they might still be an issue for humanist ideology.  I think that dawkins take on religious thinking is descriptive, but it;s not a kosher take for humanism.

Freethinking questions is a term of art.  Race realists and gender realists are asking freethinking questions, if you ask them.  Yes, freethinking can be an exclusive enterprise to humanism in any state of affairs in which reality as it is does not confirm to reality as humanism asserts it should be.  That's a feature, not a bug.

Are race realists really freethinkers though? Or are they pushing a narrow ideology under the guise of free thought? We need to be real in our assessment of things. How is this really going down? Are these people really freethinkers according to our own good judgment?

When a truly open-minded person asks questions about race and gender realism they generally find a humanistic answer at the end of their inquiry. So the questions aren't what's bad. What's bad is when people ask these questions with an answer already in mind... an answer mined from their bigoted ideology which they are trying to sell. Call me old fashioned, but that's not freethinking in my book.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, race realists and gender realists are really freethinkers, unless you're limiting freethought to the approved grounds right off the bat......you know I love irony and subtlety, lol.

They may have shitty takes, but they're very freely thinking them and very freely questioning the competing positions. At any rate, dawkins expressed that he very much already had a conclusion in mind in his comments....so, is he a freethinker? Or is that another metric he's failed by in addition to the humanist metrics, in this instance?

[Reforged]

We can agree with a persons criticism, and those criticisms can be accurate - and they might still be an issue for humanist ideology.  I think that dawkins take on religious thinking is descriptive, but it;s not a kosher take for humanism.

Freethinking questions is a term of art.  Race realists and gender realists are asking freethinking questions, if you ask them.  Yes, freethinking can be an exclusive enterprise to humanism in any state of affairs in which reality as it is does not confirm to reality as humanism asserts it should be.  That's a feature, not a bug.

Are race realists really freethinkers though? Or are they pushing a narrow ideology under the guise of free thought? We need to be real in our assessment of things. How is this really going down? Are these people really freethinkers according to our own good judgment?

When a truly open-minded person asks questions about race and gender realism they generally find a humanistic answer at the end of their inquiry. So the questions aren't what's bad. What's bad is when people ask these questions with an answer already in mind... an answer mined from their bigoted ideology which they are trying to sell. Call me old fashioned, but that's not freethinking in my book.

Out of interest; what is your position on the genetics regarding resistance and vulnerability to conditions like diabetes and cancer?

[The Grand Nudger]

 should you be denounced by humanists for it?

Humanists have all sorts of better reasons to denounce me and my positions and my actions on things other than speaking about a contentious topic, and I couldn't care less.....but, personally, I don't think the topic I'm discussing is contentious at all.

The aha did what they wanted to do with their own prize.  Dawkins did what he wanted to do with his own mouth.  The world may not be the way we insist that it should be. Some of our personal commitments to various ideologies may be in conflict. Is there anything contentious -or- nonfactual in any of this?