Skip to main content

View Diary: Michigan country club cancels speaker due to his belief in God (242 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You burried the lede: (18+ / 0-)
    after watching him on "The O'Reilly Factor" on the Fox News channel

    I was Rambo in the disco/ I was shootin' to the beat/ When they burned me in effigy My vacation was complete. Neil Young

    by Mike S on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 11:13:19 AM PDT

    •  as I said above, (7+ / 0-)

      Richard Dawkins is brave and selfless.  he casres only about dessiminating truth.

      As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

      by BPARTR on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 11:21:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nah, not really. (5+ / 0-)

        This atheist didn't care for his condescending, misogynist dismissal of how women at atheist conventions are frequently treated. This atheist also does not visit RichardDawkins.net because she doesn't want to deal with privileged white cisgendered men who are proudly clueless about any oppression that doesn't affect them.

        Dismissing the experiences of half of humanity and making one's movement unwelcoming to them is not "selfless" or "brave." It's sucking up to the status quo. Something that, unfortunately, a lot of privileged atheists are great at doing.

        •  I didn't care for it either at the time (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PinHole, BYw, i like bbq

          ...but his cluelessness on that subject doesn't mean that I can't stick up for him (and the CFI) when they're wronged by prejudice that also hurts the rest of us.  

          I think the freethinker "movement" will get past the stupid ingrained sexism that RW was referencing despite some of their oldest members being so clueless about it.  Some of those who've been blind for so long may have to die (of natural causes, please)  first, but that's true of any progress.

          But then, I'm a privileged atheist myself.    

          America, we can do better than this...

          by Randomfactor on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 04:58:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for the Link (6+ / 0-)

          I wasn't aware of Dawkins' comments. It's disappointing that he wrote them.

          I find this sort of thing to often be the result of a generational bias. Dawkins' philosophical support for sexual equality is indisputable, but his own perspective evolved in an era where the disparities between the sexes were so much more severe than they are today. Even today there is a war on women, but Dawkins seemed not to recognize that, hence the heaps and heaps of criticism piled upon him.

          His comments were not malicious, but ignorant--not patriarchal, but patrician. For one thing, he didn't seem to know the full details of the elevator incident. His indignation was unfounded, and he would regret it if he realized his mistake. But, more importantly, his formative years occurred a very long time ago. It's sad, really. People can't help but be shaped by their surroundings, and Dawkins grew up in an era where U.S. women (and, more to the point, British women) on average were in a vastly worse position than they are now. Notice Dawkins' emphasis on the oral nature of the sexual proposition. In his time, that was the "appropriate" way to make a sexual overture: A male would invite a female to some kind of social engagement, like coffee. Society didn't yet condone other ways of doing it, and even that was a considerable liberalization over older customs, where contact between the sexes was much more strictly controlled.

          Dawkins probably does not realize that most women do not like being constantly propositioned. That's obvious to most younger people and most women, but it's not obvious to everyone else. Other people his age have shone themselves to be more impressionable and thus open to letting their views evolve in a gradual, drama-free fashion, but Dawkins has a very well-defined personality and in those people major worldview changes are hard to make gradually, favoring occasional flare-ups--like this one. I hope somebody close to him can just have three minutes to talk to him about this, because I think he would come around instantly if somebody would tell him what he did wrong in the words he would understand.

          I'm sympathetic to the hardships of being old in a rapidly evolving world. Even the most well-intentioned people, and Dawkins is one of them as far as I'm concerned, often carry with them the echoes of the bigotries of their time.

          It reminds me of reading books and watching movies. Almost everything that's more than a few years old, unless it was specifically devoted to sexual equality (and even then there are no guarantees), is full of sexism. If I want to read the book, or watch the movie, I just have to suck it up and remind myself that these were people living in an earlier time and there's nothing to gain by holding a grudge against the past. Unfortunately, there are plenty of actual human beings to go along with those books and movies, who still live among us and still espouse more primitive views.

          I guess all of this is just my way of saying I forgive Dawkins for his ignorance. His intentions are in the right place; he just needs help seeing the world for what it is.

          •  While I appreciate your acknowledgment (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nowhere Man

            that Dawkins' behavior was wrong, I think you are giving him too much credit by absolving him because of his generation and social class. He is certainly capable, as we all are, of continuing to learn as he grows older. In fact, I know men of his age or so who "get this" quite easily and do not need it explained to them. To make excuses for him inhibits this learning process, as it does for anyone who is blinded by their privilege.

            Also, that his remarks were "not malicious, but ignorant" — of which I am not sure, because his tone was exceedingly snide IMO — doesn't matter. Intent is not magic; it doesn't erase the effect of words on their listeners or readers. In fact, I would say that at this point in U.S. history, at least, unintentional racism, sexism, etc. constitute a much larger stumbling block to equality than do the rantings of MRAs, teabaggers, and other overt haters.

            I would like to add another link here. Tami makes excellent points, as do her commenters, that brushing off "-isms" distances a hero from many people who would otherwise have looked up to him or her, thereby weakening his or her affect on society. Not to mention that "X have it so much worse than you, so stop whining!" is a classic derailing technique. This comment rings true for me:

            Some atheists talk so much about people having blind faith in religion. As an atheist, I believe that saying that Dawkin's comments are irrelevant would mean being a blind supporter.
            And let me add something I saw brought up somewhere else that I was ashamed not to have realized myself before "ElevatorGate": "American women" and "Muslim women" are not mutually exclusive sets. Nor all all Muslim women subjected to things such as FGM and burqas. Lots of exoticizing and unasked-for speaking for others there, on Dawkins' part.
        •  A couple of years ago (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z, Nowhere Man

          we went to a Center of Inquiry meeting in Buffalo (headquarters of CFI) where Dawkins and others were speaking.  Thoroughly enjoyed most of it.  

          There were very few women present.  At a social time, another woman came up to me, and was wondering why.
          I said I didn't know, but her question gave me something to think about.

          I was unaware of this work by Dawkins.  However, my answer to myself, was that so many times atheists argue round and round in impossible picky circles.  And most of them are older men.  I think many women find such subverted warfare and one up-manship a total waste of time and pointless.

          I try to be open to new ideas, but I do not need to spend time arguing against those who seem to constantly need to keep proving themselves.  There was an air of male arrogance present.  But, as a Humanist with Unitarian upbringing, I don't let it bother me.  
          ******
          As to this CC in Michigan, the brew-ha ha  probably gave some extra publicity to the dinner.  I doubt it stopped anyone from attending in the new location.  But it shouldn't have happened.  

          They may end up like the swimming pool club in Philly - one 'powerful' member objects, but then upon reflection, others in the club may also quit.    Today many CC are in dire straits, as membership is the first thing to go when the stock market tanks and businesses lay off entertaining and paying for memberships.

          •  This is putting the onus back on the victim (0+ / 0-)
            I think many women find such subverted warfare and one up-manship a total waste of time and pointless.
            Why should "subverted warfare and one up-manship" be the prevailing tone at atheist and skeptic meetings? Why are stereotypical and socially sanctioned male ways of doing things always the standard?

            Women compose 51% of the population. They still do most of the childraising. If the atheist and skeptic movement wishes to remain vital, it will reach out to them, as well as to people of color, by checking its privilege.

            •  Couldn't agree with U more! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              i like bbq

              BTW - Such pointless arguing is not confined to CFI meetings  - it's been known to happen here   :-p

              I just came to the conclusion (for myself as I said) that such splitting of hairs was often a total waste of time.  I'm sure some of these intellectual giants consider me 'simple' and not worth their time.    

              Interestingly Carl Sagan's widow was there too.  She was put on a pedestal, so to speak, like a very pretty, untouchable China Doll.  She did not circulate into the masses, but was reserved for a head table and those who paid mega bucks to be in her presence.  

              There were women speakers too, but I found them to be much more down to earth.  

              Interesting experience.

        •  Dawkins was right to dismiss (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laconic Lib, democracy inaction

          the complaint of someone who was making a mountain out of a case where a guy asked her back to his hotel room (for coffee!).  Normal people would be flattered, even if not interested.  Or mildly annoyed at best.  But trying to claim it was an example of rampant sexism?  No.  

          Skepchic also tried to publicly shame another woman who disagreed with her reaction to the event by calling her out by name when the other woman had written to her in private.

          Dawkins' response, while acerbic, was not misogynist at all--it rather perfectly encapsulated the point that the original complaint was ludicrous as an example of rampant sexism in the skeptic community.

          •  I think you have this approximately backwards (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            i like bbq, Nowhere Man

            I watched that portion of the video again. The most relevant part starts around 4:30. In no way did she say that what happened was "an example of rampant sexism." On the contrary, she said at the beginning and end of her story that this one man was an exception. And she didn't mention "sexism" at all. She said something close to "Guys, don't do that" -- in short, don't invite me to your room when I'm alone with you in a hotel elevator at 4 AM, especially when you just heard me say that I'm tired and want to sleep.

            That seems reasonable to me, especially in the fuller context. A lot of the reaction to it doesn't seem reasonable at all. Saying that "normal people would be flattered" in that situation... well, let me put it this way. If I ever find myself saying something like that to one of my daughters, I hope she yells at me. Telling my daughters that it is abnormal to feel uncomfortable in potentially dangerous situations is just not on. (No, I don't think the man had the slightest intention of being "dangerous," but that isn't the point.)

            Now, Dawkins took it to a whole 'nother level. Seems to me that a woman ought to be able to say that she feels uncomfortable in a situation without being caricatured as a martyr in her own mind, or however one wants to put it. If a supposedly great thinker can't even get that right, then I think less of him for it. And if lots of people know what Rebecca Watson actually said, and are bothered by it, then there's an issue here. Even if lots of people are willing to assume that they know what she actually said, then there's an issue here. Maybe characterizing the issue as "rampant sexism" isn't especially helpful -- but then again, I haven't seen where Watson did that.

            •  Thanks. I followed a lot of the (0+ / 0-)

              "ElevatorGate" discussions on Pharyngula and other blogs on ScienceBlogs and FreeThoughtBlogs. Defenses of Watson brought in hordes, and I do mean hordes, of furious men. There were literally four thousand comments in three days, just on Pharyngula, not to mention tons of comments elsewhere, at the time. This thread on the subject, more than two months after the initial blow-up, topped out at more than 1,200 comments.

              While not all "progressive" atheist men are innocent in this, I suspect it has much to do with the high number of libertarians in the atheist movement. Aside from the various levels of hostility they evince to legally protected rights for oppressed groups, libertarians are, typically as well as stereotypically, affluent white men who will gladly spend hours arguing with people who disagree with them just so that they can be "right." If you've ever seen the Ron Paul fanatics flock to an anti-Paul post and fill the comment thread, you know what I mean.

            •  You're completely ignoring that (0+ / 0-)

              what really sparked the heated debate was Watson's attempt to publicly shame Steph McGraw for daring to (politely) disagree with Watson's reaction to the situation.

              Watson took to a podium, displayed Watson's response for everyone to see (alongside comments from obvious trolls that said "Rape her!" and things like that), and actually stated (paraphrased) that McGraw was bad for feminism.  McGraw was in attendance but couldn't respond, she had to sit there while Watson publicly insulted and shamed her for daring to not fully agree with her reaction to the incident.  So yes, Watson did make the incident about feminism.

              That was the context of Dawkin's response--that a huge meta issue involving perhaps hundreds of people which should be part of a unified community to combat the insidious effects of religious totalitarianism was eating itself alive over an invitation to have coffee.

              And the fact that it was 4 AM is irrelevant.  The fact that Watson was herself "tired" is irrelevant.  Heck, the guy was offering coffee, which is as I'm sure you know a stimulant that tired people use to help them stay awake.  So it's entirely reasonable to assume that this schmuck was hoping that, despite her being tired, she'd reciprocate his interest and want some coffee so they could spend some time together.  All I can see, based on the information provided, is that he was maybe a little too eager and presented himself in a poor way.  

              I'm gay and I've had plenty of people, men and women, make unwanted advances on me.  I once had a guy approach me and ride up and down my leg like it was a fire pole (without a word).  I've had a guy wrap his arms around my neck and say "I want to take you home and f*** your brains out."  I've had a woman corner me outside a bathroom and ask if I wanted to get laid.  I've had a woman at a bar lean in and press her breasts against me as she "reached for a napkin" and then lick her lips at me.  So I'm not at all unfamiliar with uncomfortable and overaggressive acts of courtship.  But asking someone back to your room for coffee?  Meh.  

              However, the larger point is that even if Watson was discomfited by the incident, she had absolutely no call to treat McGraw as she did, and it was the ensuing flamewar over that which prompted Dawkin's exhasperated response over a coffee invite.

              •  I've addressed most of your comment (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Nowhere Man

                downthread. I don't think that anybody ought to be hitting on anyone else in overly aggressive and uncomfortable ways. That said, if you're a man, you are more than likely to be able to defend yourself against inappropriately amorous men, and certainly able to do so against inappropriately amorous women. Whole different ballgame when women are hit on by men — and not just size and strength differences, but a surrounding culture that insists we be "fuckable," then blames us for unwanted attention or assault.

                I call bullshit on the "bad for feminism" remark. As I said, I followed the entire thing on various blogs.

                Finally, I notice you are not defending the countless emails, Tweets, and other correspondence Watson got, even before the McGraw incident, that were full of misogynist slurs and threats. Not to mention the blogposts of Abbie "ERV" Smith, which, along with their comment threads, were absolute toxic sewers of woman-hating (Smith has, I'd say, a real problem with internalized misogyny).

                Tell me, if there isn't a problem with misogyny in the atheism community, why are so many men upset with the advice, "Guys, don't do that" that they feel the need to degrade and threaten the woman who said it?

          •  No, he didn't dismiss the comments (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nowhere Man

            of a woman whom a guy asked back to his room for coffee.

            He dismissed the comments of a woman who had been saying all day at the convention that she didn't want to be hit on, then, when she went back to her room at 4:00 a.m., was hit on by a man while in an elevator, which is a small confined space that he could have stopped between floors at any time.

            Watson did not claim it was a sign of "rampant sexism." Her remarks were pretty much, "Guys? Don't do that." A mild request to pay attention to how women perceive one's advances — which, by the way, could make those advances more successful. Which the MRAssholes of the 'net turned into a battle call for universal castration. Because, obviously, the need to get one's dick wet supercedes the right of those silly vagina-creatures to feel "safe." Why don't they just get burqas and stay home, then?

            And, no, Watson did not "try to shame" Stefanie McGraw. McGraw criticized Watson in a public forum, her webpage. Watson rebutted McGraw in a public forum, in physical space. Male atheists do this all the time to one another. The fact that Watson took McGraw seriously enough to rebut her at a convention is a sign of respect. However, McGraw took it with ill grace, and butthurt men who don't like being told by women that their behavior is inappropriate decided to white-knight McGraw.

            Also, "normal people"? Versus... what, feminists, who are therefore "abnormal"? That speaks volumes about your outlook. And, no, most "normal people" i know would NOT be flattered to be cornered by a larger human being in a space where escape could be limited, at an hour when most other human beings would not be around to hear cries for help.

            Finally, not only did Dawkins display misogyny, he also displayed quite a bit of cultural prejudice.

            •  No, Dawkins reacted to a meta flamewar (0+ / 0-)

              over a coffee invite that was consuming a community that doesn't need the distraction.

              He dismissed the comments of a woman who had been saying all day at the convention that she didn't want to be hit on, then, when she went back to her room at 4:00 a.m., was hit on by a man while in an elevator, which is a small confined space that he could have stopped between floors at any time.

              First, hotel elevators (and hallways) all have cameras that are constantly monitored by staff, especially at night.  If someone stopped an elevator, that would get an immediate response from the staff.  Second, there was no indication that the man was at all threatening.  Asking someone for coffee may be boorish, but it's not an indication that someone is a rapist.

              The defense of Watson over her shaming of McGraw that you give is woefully inaccurate.  Watson put McGraw's respectful, polite disagreement up on a screen next to obvious troll comments that were atrocious.  Then, with a captive audience, Watson proceeded to accuse McGraw of being bad for feminism.  McGraw had no opportunity to respond, she was being humiliated by Watson publicly.  Watson could have responded on her blog and engaged in a conversation there.  She could have invited McGraw to engage in a debate where they both had chances to state their view publicly and respond to the other.  Instead, within the safety of having the podium and not being subject to a response, she excortiated McGraw.  It was cowardly and low.  No matter how much Watson, PZ and you try to spin it as somehow "respecting" McGraw by doing it that way, it isn't.  An we're not talking about rebutting a matter of demonstrable fact publicly as Atheists and scientists do, we're talking about a public attack on McGraw's character.

              Also, "normal people"? Versus... what, feminists, who are therefore "abnormal"? That speaks volumes about your outlook.

              I include feminists as "normal people."  Here you engage in the exact kind of insult that Watson leveled at McGraw: disagree with her reaction, and you're not a "true" feminist.  McGraw IS a feminist.  That's the crux of this whole stupid meta flamewar that Watson generated: if you don't agree with her, clearly you must be an anti-feminist raging mysoginist or whatever.  Puh.

              Finally, not only did Dawkins display misogyny, he also displayed quite a bit of cultural prejudice.

              What?  It's cultural prejudice to be horrified by the treatment of women in fundamentalist Muslim countries?  What kind of feminist would say that?  Errant nonsense.

              Judging Dawkins as a misogynist over one acerbic response to a [i]invitation to have coffee[/i] is simply asburd.  He has a long record of being a champion for equality and civil rights for everyone--racial minorities, sexual minorities and, yes, women.  He has passionately spoken out about the treatment of women in theocratic countries and, yes, under Western religious traditions.  Claiming he's a raging sexist pig over the coffee invite is the epitome of an extreme purity test.

              •  "..a community that doesn't need the distraction." (0+ / 0-)

                Discussion of misogyny and sexism in the atheist community is not a "distraction." It is LONG overdue. ElevatorGate was simply the most severe eruption. If you're a woman who doesn't feel there's anything wrong in the community, bully for you. You don't speak for all of us.

                First, hotel elevators (and hallways) all have cameras that are constantly monitored by staff, especially at night.
                How long would it have taken the monitoring guard to get to the elevator? Long enough for an assault to take place first.
                Asking someone for coffee may be boorish, but it's not an indication that someone is a rapist.
                Not the point. Also, please to be distinguishing "rapist" from "rape culture," in which it's considered OK to disregard women's wishes and put them in awkward to uncomfortable to alarming positions in the interest of getting laid. That contributes to the concept that women exist for men's convenience.

                I repeat: McGraw is a big girl who can speak up for herself. I have seen a lot nastier exchanges and arguments in the blogosphere than what you describe.

                I wasn't referring to McGraw when I called out your "normal" comment, but, for the record, I think McGraw's feminism leaves something to be desired. I don't really give a shit if that makes me "intolerant." I see too many women, especially young women who have a lot of unlearning to do, who say all kinds of problematic things, then whinge about the "intolerance" of "those radical militant feminists" when called on them. I'm hardly a radfem; I'm not anti-porn or anti-transgender, nor am I a gender essentialist. I just have very low tolerance for nonsense masquerading as something else.

                It's cultural prejudice to be horrified by the treatment of women in fundamentalist Muslim countries?
                Strawman. "Muslimah" refers to all Muslim women, not merely those in Islamicist countries. And, trust me, they do not want him speaking for them. As I said elsewhere here, I am normally skeptical of theistic feminists, especially those in Abrahamic religions, but given how racism affects the perceptions of Muslims in the West (despite some actually being white), I back them up on this.

                Finally, having advocated for equality does not give anybody a free pass on being an asshole. Dawkins does not have to be an MRA or an anti-choicer to be harboring some rather obnoxious assumptions about what "should" matter to women and what "should not."

          •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            adocarbog, Boris Godunov

            Talk about a tempest in a teapot...

            I don't much care for anyone trying to malign Dawkins as "Dismissing the experiences of half of humanity and making one's movement unwelcoming to them" when he did no such thing.  Dawkins is no more responsible for the comments on his web page than Markos is for the comments here.

            As to his comment that got so much attention, I agree; acerbic, yes.  Dawkins is known for being acerbic and that's one of the reasons I like to read his stuff.  But misogynistic?  That's a bridge too far.  A lot more got read into what Dawkins said than what he actually said, which I'm quite sure happens to him all the time considering what he is known for.

            I read a lot of the criticism and much of it was just ad hominem attacks on Dawkins that didn't at all address what he said.  I read a lot of the criticism before I read the comment that got criticized and none of the criticism I read was particularly enlightening as to what Dawkins said, it was just a lot of insults and stuff like "you're a white male privileged jerk" and little explanation of why that was considered to be the case or if there was an explanation, it was based on what I think are false assumptions about what Dawkins said.  I was quite amused by one reaction where the critic said, among other things, "...You don't have people constantly explaining that you're subhuman, or have the intellect of an animal. You don't have people saying you shouldn't have rights..."

            Um, excuse me?  This is Richard Dawkins, noted atheist we're talking about here.  I am quite certain that he can relate to those experiences.  Every atheist can relate to those experiences.

            Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

            by democracy inaction on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 06:58:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  For those (0+ / 0-)

          that don't want to go to all the trouble that I did of following the links and reading all about this tempest in a teapot, I will correct the record here;

          This atheist didn't care for his condescending, misogynist dismissal of how women at atheist conventions are frequently treated.
          That inaccurate and misleading.  Dawkins made an acerbic remark, not about how a woman at an atheist convention was treated but about her characterization of that one relatively innocent encounter.  And many read into his remarks and then took issue with what they themselves had read in.

          Dawkins in no way dismissed "the experiences of half of humanity," which is an actual example of the kind of hyperbole I refer to above.  That one's a particularly egregious criticism considering that it is aimed at Dawkins but it is based on what commenters on his blog said, not on anything that he actually said.  Guilt by association, just like when people try to hammer Markos for what people on his blog say.

          Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

          by democracy inaction on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 07:17:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Your comment is wrong and I think intentionally (0+ / 0-)

          dishonest. Yes, I think you are being dishonest, to put it politely.
          Richard Dawkins is not a misogynist who is "clueless about any oppression that doesn't affect" him.
          On the first link you provide as "evidence" of his misogyny Dawkins simply draws a distinction between degrees of harm, stating that the systematic misogyny faced by women in Muslim societies is much more serious than any misogyny involved in a man making a pass at a woman in a hotel elevator. How one gets to the conclusion that Dawkins' pointing out a clear and strong case of misogyny constitutes misogyny involves a very special kind of ninja logic.
          The second quote you provide as evidence of Dawkins' cluelessness about oppression is actually no such thing. The author of the post does complain about her perception of misogyny experienced at the forum RichardDawkins.net. However, as the author states at the bottom of her post:

          *I should point out that Richard Dawkins himself does not moderate or endorse any of the comments on the forum, and that RD.net is actually in the process of closing the forum I am referring to, in order to replace it with a more editorially-controlled version.

          Not only do other women in the forum disagree with the poster's claims, but the poster herself states clearly that the sexism she encounters there cannot be attributed to Richard Dawkins himself.
          Yet i like bbq here distorts the very texts she (I presume) links to. Either i like bbq is incapable of basic reading comprehension, or she (I presume) is being intentionally dishonest. Perhaps the very fact that there is a link provided lends weight and authority to one's comment, regardless of the accuracy...
          •  Misogynist is as misogynist does. (0+ / 0-)

            "Distorting," my ass. I followed this whole thing as it unfolded.

            On the first link you provide as "evidence" of his misogyny Dawkins simply draws a distinction between degrees of harm, stating that the systematic misogyny faced by women in Muslim societies is much more serious than any misogyny involved in a man making a pass at a woman in a hotel elevator.
            "How can you complain about X when Y is so much worse?" is a classic derailing technique. All types and levels of misogyny have a common source. Little things build up to large things.

            RD.net may not be moderated by Dawkins, but it's got his name on it. If he doesn't like the tone of that forum, let him clean it up. And because other women agree with him doesn't make him not-misogynist. Plenty of women have a great deal of internalized misogyny, especially right-wing ones, but certainly plenty on the left as well.

            Your fanboying is noted, however.

            •  Your derailing link is very telling (0+ / 0-)

              - about you. You misconstrue Richard Dawkins' words and you project prejudices on to him. Now I know how you can be impervious to exposition - you have an entire arsenal of psychological tricks that you can apply to any argument, so you are immune to reason.

              By the way, "derailing" being defined as ways to "dismiss and trivialize your opposition's perspective and  experience", you should add your own entry to the list: just accuse them of misogyny! There. You have one-upped him! You have now marginalized - nearly criminalized - Dawkins' perspective and rendered his experience and dispositions completely dysfunctional - leaning toward pathological.

              Accusing your opposition of misogyny is the ultimate "derailing" technique in your hands.

    •  Why anyone with a brain goes on a show (12+ / 0-)

      run by a guy who thinks the TIDES are proof of god, I'll never know.


      I don't know how to embed it to start at a specific time, so scroll to 1:54.

      Reality has a liberal bias.

      by Hayate Yagami on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 12:49:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site