Atheist Civil War: Angry Feminists Get Richard Dawkins Disinvited from Skeptics' Conference

[+Red King Subscriber²]

Quote

 

Atheist Civil War: Angry Feminists Get Richard Dawkins Disinvited from Skeptics’ Conference
by Allum Bokhari | 28 Jan 2016

 

As the leading voice of militant atheists, Richard Dawkins has spent much of the last few decades battling Christians, Muslims, and deity-worshippers of every denomination. But now he has a new fanatical opponent: the secular dogmatists of the regressive left.
Yesterday evening, after retweeting a video critical of modern feminism, the renowned professor and critic of religion had his invitation to a skeptic conference revoked. In a statement posted on their website, the Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism said:

• The Northeast Conference on Science & Skepticism has withdrawn its invitation to Richard Dawkins to participate at NECSS 2016. We have taken this action in response to Dr. Dawkins’ approving re-tweet of a highly offensive video.
• We believe strongly in freedom of speech and freedom to express unpopular, and even offensive, views. However, unnecessarily divisive, counterproductive, and even hateful speech runs contrary to our mission and the environment we wish to foster at NECSS. The sentiments expressed in the video do not represent the values of NECSS or its sponsoring organizations.

For the NECSS, it seems that some forms of skepticism are less welcome than others. Dawkins regularly posts tweets about Christianity, Islam, and assorted other faiths that could be perceived as “hateful,” yet it was his mockery of western feminists that led to his excommunication from this particular Atheist church.

 

Rest of article with pictures and YouTube Video,
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/01/28/atheist-civil-war-angry-feminists-get-richard-dawkins-disinvited-from-skeptics-conference/

 

For those that break out in hives when BreitBart is used as source,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-vdeo-twitter-necss-event-feminism-a6841161.html

 

[wakjak]

Yeah, i'm sure he'll be losing lots of sleep over that one...

[+Red King Subscriber²]

By the way the video in question is hilarious - not work safe, but hilarious and right on the mark.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

this only makes my point stronger. Stop pandering to the minority. These people are fascist and seeking to erase freedom of speech. They somehow claim to "strongly believe" in free speech, but want to censor and condemn it. Yeah, makes complete sense.

[ramesees]

We believe strongly in freedom of speech and freedom to express unpopular, and even offensive, views. However, unnecessarily divisive, counterproductive, and even hateful speech runs contrary to our mission and the environment we wish to foster at NECSS

 

Does this hurt anyone else's head or is it just mine ?

 

Essentially its the following:

 

Freedom of speech is allowed unless it conflicts with us.

You can have differing opinions as long as that opinion is approved by us (ie you rally against the SJW approved opposition topics)

If you conflict with us its no longer Freedom of Speech its "hate speech" / rape / microagressions / etc..

 

Let me off this planet I want to go home

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

This is stupid. The best thing humans can do is always listen to others points of view and debate them, not shut down debate and censor freespeech. Obvious caveats in place for genuine hate speech, but even then the bravest and most productive human beings will take on debates against the whackiest in the small chances we help the disillusioned question themselves. Or encourage the followers of the disillusioned to question what they are backing.

 

Modern day feminists have completely wrecked and tarnished the term. Which is sad, as most of us are genuine feminists in so far as we support equal opportunity. We support equal opportunity for all sexes though, which is really the true meaning of a feminist. A lot of modern day feminists are simply part of cults of hating and disapproving of men, pushing trigger warnings and being social justice warriors.

 

As a fellow atheist/freethinker I do find Dawkins to be unnecessarily abrasive at times, but there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone who's beliefs you mostly agree with on a point to point basis. He lacks the etiquette and class of Christopher Hitchens, but is far from someone who should have his debates/platform shutdown. He poses no real risk other than triggering off social justice warriors with the occasional reckless comments that the majority of us can just shrug off. Being upset or offended isn't a valid reason to shutdown discussion, that should rightfully only be reserved for those who pose genuine threats to life/safety. In a direct way I might add (such as telling you it's justified to say kill homosexuals), it's not a genuine threat to say his vicious lack of belief in God will cause you to be triggered and go self harm in a dark room. That is your issue and lack of ability to cope with real life and different view points.

 

I find it quite sad and worrying that in this information age we are currently seeing many want to revert back to the dark ages before the internet and ease of access to digital content (books/videos) and simply only listen to those around them with 1:1 beliefs. It is important to becoming a well rounded human to have your beliefs challenged and listen to those who think differently from you to understand why, and critique yourself. We all get influenced massively by our direct surroundings (family/friends/area we live in), so it is important to consume as much information/debate that is available globally to really make our own minds up.

[DocM]

But this is what the leftists, PC'ers and SJW's want: continually revised echo chambers, previously known as NewSpeak in Orwell's 1984.

 

Quote

Newspeakl; the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace.

 

[FloatingFatMan]

3 hours ago, Audioboxer said:

Modern day feminists have completely wrecked and tarnished the term. Which is sad, as most of us are genuine feminists in so far as we support equal opportunity. We support equal opportunity for all sexes though, which is really the true meaning of a feminist. A lot of modern day feminists are simply part of cults of hating and disapproving of men, pushing trigger warnings and being social justice warriors.

 

 

Modern day "feminists" don't want equality, they want an advantage.  I say, if they want equality, they're more than welcome to it, but when I say equality, I mean REAL equality. When a woman pisses me off, I want the same freedom to smack her in the mouth as I do a man.  When a woman expects the same pay as a man, she must do the same WORK as a man, too (ie: female tennis players, I'm glaring at you, you lazy bleeps... You want paying for a 5 setter?  Bloody well PLAY a 5 setter!).

 

TRUE equality, if you please.

[chrisj1968]

This is 3rd generation feminism. It is completely irrelevant. Even feminists(former) have come out and stated they find its a lie. 

[DocM]

28 minutes ago, chrisj1968 said:

This is 3rd generation feminism. It is completely irrelevant. Even feminists(former) have come out and stated they find its a lie. 

A great example of a rational feminist who feels this way is Carmille Paglia. She rips the gen 3's in brutal fashion.  

 

What she says about it also applies to other aspects of today's new left progressivism.

 

http://www.spiked-online.com/spiked-review/article/feminist-trouble/17688#.Vquw60lOnqC

 

Quote

The problem with too much current feminism, in my opinion, is that even when it strikes progressive poses, it emanates from an entitled, upper-middle-class point of view. It demands the intrusion and protection of paternalistic authority figures to project a hypothetical utopia that will be magically free from offence and hurt. Its rampant policing of thought and speech is completely reactionary, a gross betrayal of the radical principles of 1960s counterculture, which was inaugurated in the US by the incendiary Free Speech Movement at the University of California at Berkeley.

 

Edited January 29, 2016 by DocM

[malenfant]

I think one of the great ironies and tragedies of 3rd wave feminism will be the blowback and the possible rollback of some of the gains of earlier feminists. later generations of women are going to despise these 3rd wave feminists and their allies for what they've done.

[compl3x]

On 1/29/2016 at 1:28 AM, Audioboxer said:

 

I find it quite sad and worrying that in this information age we are currently seeing many want to revert back to the dark ages before the internet and ease of access to digital content (books/videos) and simply only listen to those around them with 1:1 beliefs. It is important to becoming a well rounded human to have your beliefs challenged and listen to those who think differently from you to understand why, and critique yourself. We all get influenced massively by our direct surroundings (family/friends/area we live in), so it is important to consume as much information/debate that is available globally to really make our own minds up.

Perhaps one of the most disturbing trends is that colleges and universities are becoming especially hostile to free speech. Or, should I say, particular opinions on particular topics. Those institutions, you would think, should be places where debate is encouraged. 

 

All of this is the result of travelling too far leftward. In a completely misguided effort to seem absolutely tolerant of everyone and supportive of every belief all the time a bizarre, regressive movement has been born. But I am not even sure the "defenders of the feelings" actually care about protecting minorities from discrimination or beliefs from ridicule, I think it is more about promoting yourself as socially and morally superior to everyone else.

 

[PGHammer]

5 minutes ago, compl3x said:

Perhaps one of the most disturbing trends is that colleges and universities are becoming especially hostile to free speech. Or, should I say, particular opinions on particular topics. Those institutions, you would think, should be places where debate is encouraged. 

 

All of this is the result of travelling too far leftward. In a completely misguided effort to seem absolutely tolerant of everyone and supportive of every belief all the time a bizarre, regressive movement has been born. But I am not even sure the "defenders of the feelings" actually care about protecting minorities from discrimination or beliefs from ridicule, I think it is more about promoting yourself as socially and morally superior to everyone else.

 

It is precisely THIS sort of thinking that reminds me of exactly why, despite being a Democrat, I am NOT a leftist.

 

The right and the left are way too alike; therefore I despise both in equal measure.

[wakjak]

4 hours ago, PGHammer said:

It is precisely THIS sort of thinking that reminds me of exactly why, despite being a Democrat, I am NOT a leftist.

 

The right and the left are way too alike; therefore I despise both in equal measure.

Yes yes we know how you're the most conservative right wing Democrat there is here... Essentially A DINO  because it's too embarrassing to associate with the Republican party.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

5 hours ago, compl3x said:

Perhaps one of the most disturbing trends is that colleges and universities are becoming especially hostile to free speech. Or, should I say, particular opinions on particular topics. Those institutions, you would think, should be places where debate is encouraged. 

 

All of this is the result of travelling too far leftward. In a completely misguided effort to seem absolutely tolerant of everyone and supportive of every belief all the time a bizarre, regressive movement has been born. But I am not even sure the "defenders of the feelings" actually care about protecting minorities from discrimination or beliefs from ridicule, I think it is more about promoting yourself as socially and morally superior to everyone else.

 

Definitely.

[T3X4S]

On 1/29/2016 at 8:06 AM, wakjak said:

Yeah, i'm sure he'll be losing lots of sleep over that one...

It looks like Professor Dawkins pulled the tweet claiming he wasnt aware the "woman" in the video was based on a real woman, who has rec'd death threats, etc.  

Then, the NECSS tweets, in so many words - "Dawkins deleted his tweet, here is the original (with the video we dont like)...."  anyone see something strange there ?

If you go through the NECSS related tweets - you will see a couple prominent members stating there has been a long forming cancer in the organization, and this is their latest BS
 

[DocM]

Atheist groups have had a sexism problem for a long time, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris being great examples, so it's no surprise feminists would react. This treatment is why New Atheism; the aggressive, politicized version internet trolls favor, is largely a white males club.

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/

[Noir Angel]

On 29/01/2016 at 4:17 PM, DocM said:

But this is what the leftists, PC'ers and SJW's want: continually revised echo chambers, previously known as NewSpeak in Orwell's 1984.

Curious, I'm a "leftist" and I don't want that. Did I miss something? Or are you doing the typically ignorant Fox News thing of making this about left v right again, when it's about authoritarian v libertarian.

 

14 minutes ago, DocM said:

Atheist groups have had a sexism problem for a long time, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris being great examples, so it's no surprise feminists would react. This treatment is why New Atheism; the aggressive, politicized version internet trolls favor, is largely a white males club.

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/

Yeah, it's gotta be true if Salon says so, certainly not a site loaded with polemical BS or anything, right?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

25 minutes ago, DocM said:

Atheist groups have had a sexism problem for a long time, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris being great examples, so it's no surprise feminists would react. This treatment is why New Atheism; the aggressive, politicized version internet trolls favor, is largely a white males club.

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/

While I don't doubt there are stupid atheists, as to be an atheist just means a lack of belief in a god(s), I do not really think Dawkins or Harris are particularly dangerous to females in anyway. A lot of the respectful things they say do cover serious issues of genital mutilation, forced marriages, and shocking womens rights in certain countries. 

 

Salon isn't that great a source/website, and I don't doubt Dawkins more than Harris says stupid things, but having prominent media figures highlight some of the shocking things that happen to women on a larger scale than what happens here in the West can only be for good. Gets at some of us here in the west who live inside bubbles.

 

Again a lot of what the 3rd wave of western feminists want to go after is largely trigger warnings and other garbage (I got upset over a twitter post!), when the real serious neglect to treat women equally largely happens to women that couldn't even call themselves a feminist without facing life threatening situations (rape/death/stoning/etc).

[compl3x]

29 minutes ago, DocM said:

Atheist groups have had a sexism problem for a long time, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris being great examples, so it's no surprise feminists would react. This treatment is why New Atheism; the aggressive, politicized version internet trolls favor, is largely a white males club.

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/

Come on, dude. You're just sticking the boot into a philosophy you already disagree with. Salon's relationship with Harris in particular is woeful.

[MikeChipshop Member]

When are we going to stop referring to these people as "Feminists"? They're not. They're a bunch of SJW on a mission to spread their cry baby ethics.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Let me start by saying that as much as I respect Richard Dawkins the link he posted was extremely offensive and inappropriate, as equating feminism with Islamism is intellectually dishonest. At the same time the correct response is not to censor him but to challenge his opinions, which is why they were wrong to disinvite him. To claim they support free expression whilst censoring people for expressing themselves is hypocritical. Neither side comes off looking good in this matter.

[FloatingFatMan]

3 hours ago, DocM said:

Atheist groups have had a sexism problem for a long time, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris being great examples, so it's no surprise feminists would react. This treatment is why New Atheism; the aggressive, politicized version internet trolls favor, is largely a white males club.

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/

I never heard Dawkins say -anything- sexist...

[FloatingFatMan]

2 hours ago, Audioboxer said:

While I don't doubt there are stupid atheists, as to be an atheist just means a lack of belief in a god(s),

So, you're of the opinion that not believing in god means you're stupid? OK, just so I know what bias you're posting from...

 

 

2 hours ago, Audioboxer said:

I do not really think Dawkins or Harris are particularly dangerous to females in anyway. A lot of the respectful things they say do cover serious issues of genital mutilation, forced marriages, and shocking womens rights in certain countries. 

I know little of Harris, but I challenge you to prove that Dawkins says stupid things. He's probably far far smarter than any of the folks posting on here.

 

 

 

[wakjak]

3 hours ago, Javik said:

Curious, I'm a "leftist" and I don't want that. Did I miss something? Or are you doing the typically ignorant Fox News thing of making this about left v right again, when it's about authoritarian v libertarian.

 

Yeah, it's gotta be true if Salon says so, certainly not a site loaded with polemical BS or anything, right?

It's only a crap source when it doesnt fit his agenda..