After Richard Dawkins's recent promotion of this video on Twitter ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08 ), the Northeast Conference of Science and Skepticism ( http://necss.org/ ) has cancelled his upcoming appearance. ( http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/01/28/richard-dawkins-responds-after-being-booted-from-necss-conference-2/ ).

I am puzzled as to why Richard Dawkins - or anyone - would ever think this video was either illuminating or funny. In any case, rightly or wrongly, Dawkins's latest PR debacle has resulted in him getting booted from a conference he was scheduled to speak at.

Just posting because I thought this item would be of interest.

“Ah well, ‘Always look on the bright side of life.’ Incidentally, would Monty Python have been de-platformed for that? No, don’t be silly, Life of Brian was only satirizing Christianity.”

What????

I read that and wondered how long itwouldtake his defenders ro make excuses for him.

"Excuse for Him,....For Richard Dawkins? If not Him who would you prefer I make an excuse for?....For Mother Theresa? For Pope?
Oh wait I'd make an excuse for Christopher Hitchens for his slurred speech when he was alive.....
I love my heroes when they are illuminating their lives after Charles Darwin.....

Didnt take long. Sigh.

...I initially thought you were referring to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNARnZdOY-Y

Nevermind!

That was hilariously offensive. Lol

Looks like another of Tal's "Dawkins is the leader of the Atheists" rants.

Only to you, Dave.

Not that I care about Richard Dawkins.

I've only read one of his books (it wasn't about atheism, but about evolutionary biology). It was interesting because it taught me a lot I didn't know.

I've been an atheist since at least as long as him and I don't need any advice on how to do it.

It's actually very easy: you just stop believing. Period.

Tom in Paris

and people actually PAY you to write stuff ?

The cartoon was poorly done, and the music was terrible. I can't stand really bad music--it's a mockery of the real thing. That's the only real issue I see here. Many thanks to Tal for his musical detective work.

Dawkins recommended that? Then he's a fool, apparently addicted to acting out, but he did nothing wrong. If there are any questions about his actual intelligence, then he could have easily answered them at that very conference. Shows how reasonable the other skeptics are. Skepticism is increasingly being used as a cover for poorly conceived dogmatic positions.

I hope this whole stupid mess doesn't obscure the very real symbiotic relationship between political Islamists and political feminists. It's a lot like the relationship between Nazis and Communists in the Weimar Republic. They needed each other to crush democracy in Germany.

That video was offensive because it was both misogynistic and Islamohobic. Dawkins has a history of both and it is about time he was called on it.

Oh. So now you have to be the right kind of Atheist and the correct type of sceptic?

Here's a somewhat different take on this incident:

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2016/01/29/offensive-satire/

Some people don't get satire, even when it's pointed out to them that it's satire.

Me, I was an atheist long before I heard of Dawkins. I'd be an atheist if I'd never heard of him. And I get satire. So I really don't care, other than to point out that the group that "disinvited" him proved the point he was trying to make.

This one really makes the point, humorously:

http://thescepticalpoet.com/2016/01/29/richard-dawkins-in-offensive-twitter-tirade/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2016 01:15PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Thanks for posting that. The entire thing was confusing to me - it wasn't particularly funny to me, but I couldn't see what was offensive. Seriously. Michael Nugent cleared that up for me and I agree with his take.

But now we have a bigger problem.

Dawkins has apparently been rejected by the leaders of the Science & Skepticism conference, who, until they disinvited Dawkins, likely also fell into the "new atheist" camp.

So, what are the former "new atheists" going to be called now that they have apparently split from Dawkins?

The skeptical poet one was hilarious. I am LMAO.

Hie wrote:
> This one really makes the point, humorously:
>
> http://thescepticalpoet.com/2016/01/29/richard-daw
> kins-in-offensive-twitter-tirade/

Priceless satire!

Dawkins is a brilliant biologist, author and teacher. He really ought to avoid ad libbed, off the cuff, impromptu remarks, however. He just digs himself in deeper every time. Perhaps he needs a minder.

Sterling

Wait! Richard Dawkins is an atheist? Why the hell didn't he just say so? I wouldn't have been so skeptical of his philosophical musings, I would have just blindly accepted everything he spewed. Why is it that people don't tell me that I'm supposed to agree with them before they start telling me sh!t?

the king of the Atheists was disinvited ?

Richard Dawkins has sort of gone off the deep end. He used to make a lot of sense. But now he pulls stunts like defending Michael Shermer's sexual harassment of women and tweeting positively about this ghastly cartoon that I could not finish watching.

Feminists can be intimidating and hostile, but not nearly as bad as the cartoon portrays. Feminists are usually angry about genuine grievances that wouldn't be too hard to redress if society had the will and desire.

Because of his recent clueless activity, I may be forced to renounce atheism and become something else. It won't have anything to do with theism, so that just leaves ismism.

I am down for the struggle! Ismism is where it's all happening now! Everything that needs explaining is explained in ismism, thank ghawd!

Even broken clocks are right twice a day.

Dawkins is a working clock.

But even working clocks have to be reset now and then. The power goes out. They run fast or slow. Or the battery dies.

I like Dawkins. I'm not a hardcore supporter, but the guy is logical and makes a lot of sense.

Hell, even Tesla thought the signals from jupiter's magnetic field was actually ET's trying to make contact. Ya can't ALWAYS be right.

Unless you're the prophet. Then you're ALWAYS right.

Probably the best thing I learned while getting out of the church is that people are human, they makes mistakes and dumb choices some times. No one is above making errors in judgement. No one.

Dawkins speaks for himself. I watched the YouTube video. It was satire. Too many fools get thier panties in a twist. Fuck 'em.

HH. =)

It is intersting how bent out of shape some RfMers get whenever Dawkins or Harris or Hitchens are criticized AND how at the same time they affect a stance that they are not bent out of shape.

Tal doesn't say or imply that Dawkins is the leader of atheists etc.

Tal doesn't say or imply that atheists *must* follow or care for or honour or etc Dawkins or the things Dawkins's says or does.

Tal doesn't say anything of the like. Yet most of the replies are avowals of the like. Why?


As for the actual subject of the OP, I agree, the video was painfully unfunny. And it is interesting that even the New Atheist lecture circuit are finding his brand of crassness a bit too much and a bit too embarrassing. There has always been something a bit untoward about New Atheism, a boorishness that was worn as a badge of honour, but Dawkins is getting a bit like the the drunk uncle at the end of the party.

Calling something "satire" doesn't automatically make that something successful. The video is an attempt at satire, yes, but it is a very poorly executed attempt. "Liking" it, in my opinion, reveals poor taste and judgement, to say the least.

Human

Exactly. The video is offensive and unfunny. Dawkins is acting more and more unhinged and it is easy to predict which posters are going to freak out over criticism of their hero while claiming that they really dont like Dawkins all that much anyway. It is so predictable.

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tal doesn't say anything of the like. Yet most of
> the replies are avowals of the like. Why?

Tal has not only implied but said a number of times that Dawkins is a "leader" in "new atheism," and that he has "millions of followers" who hang on his every word. Neither is correct.

> Calling something "satire" doesn't automatically
> make that something successful. The video is an
> attempt at satire, yes, but it is a very poorly
> executed attempt. "Liking" it, in my opinion,
> reveals poor taste and judgement, to say the
> least.

Let's be clear: Dawkins didn't "like" it or encourage people to watch it. He re-tweeted a link to it. Without comment.

Why is that such a "sin?" Can't people watch something and decide for themselves if it's satirical, offensive, or anything else?

I didn't find the satire in the video all that well-done either. But I wasn't "offended" by it. I got its point. And then I dismissed it. If I shared a link to it with some other people, should I be raked over the coals for doing so? I don't see any reason for that. And the "political correctness" that surrounded Dawkins' "uninvite" over this was far more "offensive" than the video.

The usual suspects who hate the "new atheists" so much that they fall into a dither anytime a Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, or Hitchens criticism arises.. They mustand "tsk tsk tsk" until each other gloms on and reinforce thier empty tirades. Go team "anti gnu atheists".

Enjoy the drama.

Duh...

HH. =)

Well, I thought he was good in Hogan's Heroes. Oh wait, that was Richard Dawson. Never mind.

Don, you know nothing...NOTHEEENG!

Sgt. Schultz was the best!

HH. =)