Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[Robert_S]

I agree 100% with Dawkin's attack on fundamentalist crap being spouted at Islamic (and other) faith schools, and I agree that such criticism must be expressed robustly. I just think his choice of the word "alien" was unwise, and played into the hands of the Imams, who can claim that Dawkins is aiding and abetting racist attitudes.

So you think it was a slip of the tongue?

I don't think he used the word in the way you're saying he did.

And ... on the one hand I agree with Jim that Dawkins should take into account any possible misunderstanding and/or deliberate/disingenuous misrepresentation (which I believe you're engaging in, Exi) and try to phrase his meaning with the least possible chance of ambiguity/exploitation. On the other hand, I think fuckit ... he's not the one misunderstanding or misrepresenting things here. Pragmatically, I would lean towards the former.

I lean towards pragmatic care when I'm propagandizing. That is, I think I have a responsibility to take some care about what ideas a help to propagate. I'm especially careful around the subject of Islam because I don't want my anti-Islam which is a subset of my anti-relious stance to offer too much help to that anti-islam which is a subset of other people's anti brown people stance.

It's like when I avoid driving in another driver's blind spot. It is entirely their responsibility to the state and to me to not run into me, but it is my responsibility to myself and my passengers to not make it easy for them to get us all maimed or killed. It's also kinda neighborly.

[charlou]

Okay, go tell him that. I'm sure he'll consult with you in the future regarding word usage.

Sounds like, apart from yet another attempt to needle me, you agree with me. In any event, you haven't really come up with anything convincing to suggest that I've misinterpreted Dawkins's motivation. The fact is, he's an absolute bigot, and he uses language to match.

It doesn't seem to matter how people respond to you, you've made up your mind .. My impression from your posts is either you believe Dawkins is a bigot and are indulging confirmation bias, or that you want to portray him as a bigot for some reason of personal agenda. It's impossible to say which, but atm it's coming across as the latter. In any case, the way you're stating your case here is illogical and foolish.

[charlou]

Okay, go tell him that. I'm sure he'll consult with you in the future regarding word usage.

Sounds like, apart from yet another attempt to needle me, you agree with me. In any event, you haven't really come up with anything convincing to suggest that I've misinterpreted Dawkins's motivation. The fact is, he's an absolute bigot, and he uses language to match.

Yet again, you're the one making bald claims about facts. And yet again, you've proffered not a shred of evidence.

This is a war on religion and Dawkins is fanning the flames with propaganda and you ask for evidence?

The irony ...

I don't think he's doing that at all. He's commenting on real aspects of how Islamic practice affects education and women. Misrepresenting that as an intention to create further ethnic division is either misunderstanding his intent or disingenuous mischaracterisation.

[charlou]

I agree 100% with Dawkin's attack on fundamentalist crap being spouted at Islamic (and other) faith schools, and I agree that such criticism must be expressed robustly. I just think his choice of the word "alien" was unwise, and played into the hands of the Imams, who can claim that Dawkins is aiding and abetting racist attitudes.

So you think it was a slip of the tongue?

I don't think he used the word in the way you're saying he did.

And ... on the one hand I agree with Jim that Dawkins should take into account any possible misunderstanding and/or deliberate/disingenuous misrepresentation (which I believe you're engaging in, Exi) and try to phrase his meaning with the least possible chance of ambiguity/exploitation. On the other hand, I think fuckit ... he's not the one misunderstanding or misrepresenting things here. Pragmatically, I would lean towards the former.

I lean towards pragmatic care when I'm propagandizing. That is, I think I have a responsibility to take some care about what ideas a help to propagate. I'm especially careful around the subject of Islam because I don't want my anti-Islam which is a subset of my anti-relious stance to offer too much help to that anti-islam which is a subset of other people's anti brown people stance.

It's like when I avoid driving in another driver's blind spot. It is entirely their responsibility to the state and to me to not run into me, but it is my responsibility to myself and my passengers to not make it easy for them to get us all maimed or killed. It's also kinda neighborly.

Then we're agreed ... and nice analogy.


On Dawkins' use of certain words and people misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting them ... This has, of course, happened before ... I recall discussing it somewhere on this forum recently ... His use of the words "delusion" and "selfish" in his book titles, for example ...

[Atheist-Lite]

I find it surprising that Dawkins managed to avoid putting his feet into the 'ethnic-debate' quagmire before now. Especially given how religion and ethnicity are so often linked. If this was the 1930s where would he position himself I wonder? I myself think we are in a potentialy far more perilous situation than the 1930s, and the less inflamotry language the better, once the gin is out the bottle - do 'bin-liners' potentially mock all foreign dress codes for the average prols out there ?

[Robert_S]

I find it surprising that Dawkins managed to avoid putting his feet into the 'ethnic-debate' quagmire before now. Especially given how religion and ethnicity are so often linked. If this was the 1930s where would he position himself I wonder? I myself think we are in a potentialy far more perilous situation than the 1930s, and the less inflamotry language the better, once the gin is out the bottle - do 'bin-liners' potentially mock all foreign dress codes for the average prols out there ?

As far as I know, even super hardcore sexist fundamentalist Muslims value women. But more a property and status object than as fellow humans. Making them wear excessive coverings seems more like putting a tarp over your car than a gratuitous gesture of devaluation.

[charlou]

I find it surprising that Dawkins managed to avoid putting his feet into the 'ethnic-debate' quagmire before now. Especially given how religion and ethnicity are so often linked. If this was the 1930s where would he position himself I wonder? I myself think we are in a potentialy far more perilous situation than the 1930s, and the less inflamotry language the better, once the gin is out the bottle - do 'bin-liners' potentially mock all foreign dress codes for the average prols out there ?

As far as I know, even super hardcore sexist fundamentalist Muslims value women. But more a property and status object than as fellow humans. Making them wear excessive coverings seems more like putting a tarp over your car than a gratuitous gesture of devaluation.

Unless you're of the opinion that without the "tarp" the woman is like uncovered meat who cannot blame men if they want to attack it, as one imam in Australia so blatantly put it. I'd describe that as super hardcore sexist fundamentalist Muslim evaluation of women ... and of men, for that matter.

[Robert_S]

I find it surprising that Dawkins managed to avoid putting his feet into the 'ethnic-debate' quagmire before now. Especially given how religion and ethnicity are so often linked. If this was the 1930s where would he position himself I wonder? I myself think we are in a potentialy far more perilous situation than the 1930s, and the less inflamotry language the better, once the gin is out the bottle - do 'bin-liners' potentially mock all foreign dress codes for the average prols out there ?

As far as I know, even super hardcore sexist fundamentalist Muslims value women. But more a property and status object than as fellow humans. Making them wear excessive coverings seems more like putting a tarp over your car than a gratuitous gesture of devaluation.

Unless you're of the opinion that without the "tarp" the woman is like uncovered meat who cannot blame men if they want to attack it, as one imam in Australia so blatantly put it. I'd describe that as super hardcore sexist fundamentalist Muslim evaluation of women ... and of men, for that matter.

Meat, car, property, object, Xerox machine... but not trash and not an autonomous agent who is valuable outside of her reproductive and housekeeping capacities.

I think it is important to properly characterize these toxic values so that people can properly despise them.

[charlou]

iswydt tuttity tut

[JimC]

Robert S wrote:

That is, I think I have a responsibility to take some care about what ideas a help to propagate. I'm especially careful around the subject of Islam because I don't want my anti-Islam which is a subset of my anti-relious stance to offer too much help to that anti-islam which is a subset of other people's anti brown people stance.

I quite agree, and that was the point I was making - you phrased it well.

But I dont want that to undermine the depth of my destestation for Islam in general, either. People who regard that detestation as "western imperialistic values" or "racism" can fuck right off...

[Hermit]

I find it surprising that Dawkins managed to avoid putting his feet into the 'ethnic-debate' quagmire before now. Especially given how religion and ethnicity are so often linked.

He hasn't. In 2007 Dawkins said: "When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place." All hell broke loose. Dawkins was accused being anti-Semitic, slandering religion, and asserting victimhood. Just goes to show that you can't say anything if you want to avoid being accused of racism or slander.

[charlou]

Robert S wrote:

That is, I think I have a responsibility to take some care about what ideas a help to propagate. I'm especially careful around the subject of Islam because I don't want my anti-Islam which is a subset of my anti-relious stance to offer too much help to that anti-islam which is a subset of other people's anti brown people stance.

What I'm getting from the arguments of Exi (mainly) though, is that he is twisting Dawkins's use of words to propogate a stance against intellectual atheists, trying to discredit Dawkins based on misinterpretation of legitimate usage of terminology, and on accusations of elitism.

This approach (Exi's) from a person who advocates Sartre's philosophy "on life" adds to my impression that Exi is just a stirrer.

[JimC]

I find it surprising that Dawkins managed to avoid putting his feet into the 'ethnic-debate' quagmire before now. Especially given how religion and ethnicity are so often linked.

He hasn't. In 2007 Dawkins said: "When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place." All hell broke loose. Dawkins was accused being anti-Semitic, slandering religion, and asserting victimhood. Just goes to show that you can't say anything if you want to avoid being accused of racism or slander.

Fair point, although I think he was following an anti-religion agenda rather than the political realities - the Jewish pro-Israeli lobby in the US is really a Zionist lobby, and is not limited to religious Jews as such...

[Hermit]

I find it surprising that Dawkins managed to avoid putting his feet into the 'ethnic-debate' quagmire before now. Especially given how religion and ethnicity are so often linked.

He hasn't. In 2007 Dawkins said: "When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place." All hell broke loose. Dawkins was accused being anti-Semitic, slandering religion, and asserting victimhood. Just goes to show that you can't say anything if you want to avoid being accused of racism or slander.

Fair point, although I think he was following an anti-religion agenda rather than the political realities - the Jewish pro-Israeli lobby in the US is really a Zionist lobby, and is not limited to religious Jews as such...

My take is that he expressed his admiration for the bang per person the Jewish lobby managed to achieve in comparison to whatever the atheist lobby has managed so far. The key sentence is: "So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place." I don't see how his reference to "religious Jews" makes him ipso facto anti-Semitic, let alone racist.

[colubridae]

I agree 100% with Dawkin's attack on fundamentalist crap being spouted at Islamic (and other) faith schools, and I agree that such criticism must be expressed robustly. I just think his choice of the word "alien" was unwise, and played into the hands of the Imams, who can claim that Dawkins is aiding and abetting racist attitudes.

So you think it was a slip of the tongue?

Classic.

Dawkins makes good sense on all aspects of religion, religious heirarchies, religious heirarchies within a sect, etc..

He cannot be refuted on that score. Fuck. What can I do.
I know! I’ll pick on some vague abstruse point and subtle trash Dawkins.
Brill. No-one will notice what I’m doing.
No-one will notice the Islamic apologetics.

All I need do is subtly inject a controversial ‘ad hom’ and we’re off to the races.
The real value of what Dawkins says will be covertly diminished.

Allah! I’m such a genius! Not only that, but no-one will realise what I’m up to.
Gawd’s posts are so ineffectual compared to mine, they make the perfect stalking horse.
He doesn’t even realise that his dumb-ass posts are harming the cause of Islamic apologetics.

So do you think it was a slip of the tongue?

I care strongly about attempts to trash Dawkins valiant stance against all religions including the worst of them, via ‘ad homs’

Such ‘fallacies’ are, as you well know, the apologetic’s primary weapon.

Whether Dawkins did/n’t do something is not the point here. Exposing hidden agendas in threads such as these is important.