Skepchick Warring with Dawkins Again

[Coito ergo sum]

I didn't read it so much as reverence for Watson, but more a concern that one person was not allowed to speak because another person with more clout at the time didn't want to it to be allowed.

It's the kind of thing Watson and her ilk have done in the past. When they don't like someone, they try to drum them out of the movement, including but not limited to suggesting "it's us or them"at conferences.

Dawkins has a right not to appear at a conference. And, if he doesn't want to appear if Watson is going to appear, so be it. Watson can do the same. I side with Dawkins, because I oppose the basics of Watson's messages, and if she's at a conference, it's not one I want to attend. Good for him.

[Sean Hayden]

Okay, but even if you don't agree with him, what's the problem? What's the story here?

[Ayaan]

Okay, but even if you don't agree with him, what's the problem? What's the story here?

Apparently, the people who make up 'Big Atheism' are human beings and are not always perfectly rational, skeptical, and nice.

[Coito ergo sum]

There is nothing "irrational" about Dawkins not wanting to share a podium with someone who has been a dick to him, or someone he believes to be beneath him. We all support Dawkins when he refuses to debate some creationist loon, so as not to give the creationist loon credibility by sharing a podium with him. I see this as similar to that. Why would anyone of accomplishment want to share a podium with Watson?

It perhaps was not "nice," but then again, the Skepchick crowd specializes in not being nice to those who they consider unfit for the skeptic and atheist movement.

[Ayaan]

True, but I got the impression that the Dawkins-Watson encounter was just her example of the 'feet of clay' she witnessed frequently in what she terms 'Big Atheism.' She probably used it because the tension between the two is well known by a certain segment of the atheist/skeptical community.

[Coito ergo sum]

Fair enough.

These folks just irk me, though. They're like born again Christians, only not religious. They have come to Jesus, metaphorically, in terms of the beliefs they've adopted over the last couple of years, and now that they have seen the light they attack anyone who hasn't done likewise. They're like the 18 year old who goes off to college, becomes a vegetarian, and returns home at Thanksgiving to lecture his parents on the evils of eating turkeys, unable to fathom how his parents can be so stupid and evil as to think and act as they do (and he did, up until 2 months earlier).

[laklak]

Pretty much, CES. I remember coming home during my freshman year and lecturing my father about the evils of middle-class money. The same middle-class money that was supporting me, BTW. He just laughed and told me I'd grow up eventually, which really pissed me off. Who was he, anyway? When it became painfully obvious that all I was doing at uni was drinking beer and chasing women he cut off the moola. Oh my, what a surprised and sorry little Maoist hippie I was. Suddenly I had to go out and EARN that money, and fuck me, I had to do all sorts of crap I didn't want to do in order to earn it. Changed my fucking tune in a heartbeat, I can tell you.

I keep hoping that eventually the Apelusters, Skepchicks and PZombies will grow up, but I'm far from sanguine about the possibility.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah, I can honestly say I never went through that phase. I entered college wanting to get away from home and have fun. I was looking for beer and boobies, and I found them in spades. I never had the expectation that anyone would support me, and my parents "helped" but bare minimum. I finagled my way into used books. I went to a cheaper, state university and worked for as much of my tuition, room and board as I could find. I had a job all the time during college, and lived on the cheap -- spaghetti, Ramen noodles, cheese sandwiches and kegs of beer.

I drove an old beater of a car, cobbled together and self-maintained. I'd change the oil while it was parked on the street, gave it my own brake jobs, and when the driver door broke so it was almost impossible to close if it was opened, I tied it shut with a rope and climbed in and out of the window or the passenger side. LOL.

I never called home for money. When I went home, the 'rents would stuff a few $20s in my pocket, and back in the 80s that would last a week or two, depending. I got a job at a liquor store, part of which involved loading up a pickup truck with kegs and delivering them to fraternity houses. I was rather buff back in the day, and I'd carry full kegs up and down stairs.

I never was very political back in the day. The hippies in the '80s were all about pot, mesc and acid, and they weren't much concerned with activiism, at least not at the school I went to.

[Seabass]

There is nothing "irrational" about Dawkins not wanting to share a podium with someone who has been a dick to him, or someone he believes to be beneath him.

Maybe. But it seems a bit petty and vindictive if you ask me. He could have just ignored her.

Or offered her coffee.

[Robert_S]

Fair enough.

These folks just irk me, though. They're like born again Christians, only not religious. They have come to Jesus, metaphorically, in terms of the beliefs they've adopted over the last couple of years, and now that they have seen the light they attack anyone who hasn't done likewise. They're like the 18 year old who goes off to college, becomes a vegetarian, and returns home at Thanksgiving to lecture his parents on the evils of eating turkeys, unable to fathom how his parents can be so stupid and evil as to think and act as they do (and he did, up until 2 months earlier).

Has nothing to do with the ethical issues around eating meat. Those same kids are the ones who, a generation or so earlier, might have lectured their parents about being racists, or before that, about denying women the right to vote.

I'm not saying kids are never spoiled and self righteous, nor am I denying the zeal that the discovery of new ideas brings, but that stuff has no bearing aver the rights and wrongs of the issues.

Dawkins shut down his forum and a bunch of spoiled brats went and bitched and moaned about the injustice of it all....

[Sean Hayden]

Okay, but even if you don't agree with him, what's the problem? What's the story here?

Apparently, the people who make up 'Big Atheism' are human beings and are not always perfectly rational, skeptical, and nice.

I hope the bubble is quite small, and that it only feels like a lot of people pay attention to this shit because I'm in it and paying attention to this shit.

[JimC]

Robert S wrote:

Dawkins shut down his forum and a bunch of spoiled brats went and bitched and moaned about the injustice of it all....

Did not!

[klr]

That whole period is assuming mythological proportions as it recedes into the past. Soon, no-one will be able to remember what really happened.

[Bella Fortuna]

That whole period is assuming mythological proportions as it recedes into the past. Soon, no-one will be able to remember what really happened.

SOMETHING HAPPENED?!??

[klr]

That whole period is assuming mythological proportions as it recedes into the past. Soon, no-one will be able to remember what really happened.

SOMETHING HAPPENED?!??

"There were giants in the earth in those days ..."
- Genesis 6:4