Richard Dawkins’s response to his de-platforming in Berkeley

[Lyndon]

Its still hate speech. I hate Donald Trump, but that's because he's evil and I hate evil.

 

[sayak83]

Its still hate speech.

You continue to fail to provide examples of hate speech from Dawkins.

 

[McBell]

Richard Dawkins’s response to his de-platforming in Berkeley

Please discuss. Should speakers be "de-platformed" for "hurtful" speach? If so, should they be allowed to defend themselves before being de-platformed? If not, are there any grounds upon which speakers should be denied the right to speak?

Strikes me as a publicity stunt.

"Look at us, we cut off Richard Dawkins. We are Islam friendly! come spend your money here."

 

[McBell]

Well maybe not every atheist, but a lot of atheists seem to be directing a lot of hatred towards religion if not religious people, I think that classifies as hate speech

Perhaps theists should have not set the bar so high on the intolerant side?

 

[Father Heathen]

Is critique and scrutiny of a belief really an expression of hatred toward those who hold that belief?

Hint: No, it isn't.

 

[Father Heathen]

Hate speech is speech that express hatred for another group or individual, not just inciting violence.

If someone were to say "I feel that the Islamic practice of female circumcision is quite barbaric.", would you consider that a form of "hate speech"?

 

[Lyndon]

I would say no, the practice of female circumcision is not Islamic, it is primarily African and practiced by both Christians and Muslims, so accusing it of being Islamic is actually a form of hate speech IMHO.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Yeah, there's no hatred in my signature, and I don't hate atheists, atheists on the other hand may hate me, I don't know??

"Insincere Prayers reach insincere "gods". (Judgmental of others worship) Sincere Prayers reach the True GOD. (implies all other gods but yours are false) If you are worshiping a male "god" of Jealousy, Rage, Anger, and Intolerance, I suggest your prayers might be better redirected. address God as the LORD GOD Embodiment of Truth and Wisdom, a God of Goodness, Love, Peace, Forgiveness and Sustenance, and to me GOD has to be more Female. I think God has some male side too, but only a Female can give birth to life, and without the Female side of GOD in our hearts we may not be seeing the full picture. (Yet again judgmental towards the worship of others, in this statement towards those who worship gods rather than goddesses)"

There's about as much hate in your signature as any imagined "hatred" coming from atheistic disbelief in your god.

 

[Lyndon]

You're really grasping at straws there, is that the best you have??? And what does my making judgement calls have to do with expressing hatred, nothing.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

It's no less than you've got in your claims of "hate speech", lyndon. Your claims are about as inane as the claims that not believing in Yahweh is "anti-semetic." When people like you use these accusations flippantly, they lose all power and meaning.

 

[Lyndon]

And you're accusing me of being irrational????

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

If the shoe fits, lace it up a wear it.

 

[icehorse]

Seeing as Dawkins is essentially a proponent of hate speech for religious folks, I think the station made the intelligent decision.

Your definition of "hate speech" would be... ?

 

[icehorse]

How intellectually honest of you.
Come on, you can do better.

Im not so sure.

 

[Socratic Berean]

Please quote an example of hate speech by Dawkins as an example.

I'm not sure what definition of "hate speech" we are all working from here (the term has become so politicized), but here are just a few examples of the things that Dawkins has said that certainly are not "warm-and-fuzzy speech," the kind of things that earn him the moniker "militant atheist," and that have led some more sober atheists to stand up and speak out as his biggest critics:

Speaking out against people of faith, Dawkins has famously quipped:

"I’m all for offending people’s religion. I think it should be offended at every opportunity.”

He is also famous for encouraging followers to "...mock them, ridicule them, in public...with contempt."

In line with his "anti-theist" (versus atheist) stand, "Religion: Together we can find the cure."

About Muslims in particular, he is noted for saying, "to hell with their culture."

He asserts that nonbelievers should be called "brights" (the implication being that all others are "dim").

Beyond attacking the right of the handicapped to live (about Down Syndrome children he says, "abort and try again") and arguing (at least three separate times in open publications) that teaching a young boy religion does him more harm than if an older man forces himself on said boy and fondles his genatalia (which most of us squarely define as molestation), he has attacked the legitimacy of the concept of sexual harrassment (in his famous "stop whining" comments and remarks about his impatience with the issue of backlash against women getting "inappropriately touched by the water cooler"), and has argued that rape victims shouldn't be considered trustworthy if they were drinking (that a drunk women might be responsible for her fate).

Again, not sure if this limited selection of his vitriol falls into the working definition of "hate speech" on this forum, but it could easily be filed away as imprudent, inappropriate, uncaring, and mean-spirited, at the very least and just to name a few.

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm not sure what definition of "hate speech" we are all working from here (the term has become so politicized), but here are just a few examples of the things that Dawkins has said that certainly are not "warm-and-fuzzy speech," the kind of things that earn him the moniker "militant atheist," and that have led some more sober atheists to stand up and speak out as his biggest critics:

Speaking out against people of faith, Dawkins has famously quipped:

"I’m all for offending people’s religion. I think it should be offended at every opportunity.”

He is also famous for encouraging followers to "...mock them, ridicule them, in public...with contempt."

In line with his "anti-theist" (versus atheist) stand, "Religion: Together we can find the cure."

About Muslims in particular, he is noted for saying, "to hell with their culture."

He asserts that nonbelievers should be called "brights" (the implication being that all others are "dim").

Beyond attacking the right of the handicapped to live (about Down Syndrome children he says, "abort and try again") and arguing (at least three separate times in open publications) that teaching a young boy religion does him more harm than if an older man forces himself on said boy and fondles his genatalia (which most of us squarely define as molestation), he has attacked the legitimacy of the concept of sexual harrassment (in his famous "stop whining" comments and remarks about his impatience with the issue of backlash against women getting "inappropriately touched by the water cooler"), and has argued that rape victims shouldn't be considered trustworthy if they were drinking (that a drunk women might be responsible for her fate).

Again, not sure if this limited selection of his vitriol falls into the working definition of "hate speech" on this forum, but it could easily be filed away as imprudent, inappropriate, uncaring, and mean-spirited, at the very least and just to name a few.

None of that falls under Hate Speech as defined by the US or the UK laws, though. He is not inciting violence, his remarks are caustic but do not incite hate (maybe the to hell with their culture remark, if he followed up on it with something.)
Being an ******* is not against the law, nor does it prohibit one from free speech. I can see why he would hold his views, they're not necessarily wrong, just expressed in a manner that is insensitive. But so what? Being insensitive is not against the law, at worst it's impolite. But Dawkins was never one for politeness and the amount of idiots that guy has debated over the years (generally speaking, not really pointing to any religion here) I'm not surprised he has become more and more blunt.
Besides, I can think of remarks made from religious groups that are way worse than anything Dawkins has ever said.

 

[sayak83]

I'm not sure what definition of "hate speech" we are all working from here (the term has become so politicized), but here are just a few examples of the things that Dawkins has said that certainly are not "warm-and-fuzzy speech," the kind of things that earn him the moniker "militant atheist," and that have led some more sober atheists to stand up and speak out as his biggest critics:

Speaking out against people of faith, Dawkins has famously quipped:

"I’m all for offending people’s religion. I think it should be offended at every opportunity.”

He is also famous for encouraging followers to "...mock them, ridicule them, in public...with contempt."

In line with his "anti-theist" (versus atheist) stand, "Religion: Together we can find the cure."

About Muslims in particular, he is noted for saying, "to hell with their culture."

He asserts that nonbelievers should be called "brights" (the implication being that all others are "dim").

Beyond attacking the right of the handicapped to live (about Down Syndrome children he says, "abort and try again") and arguing (at least three separate times in open publications) that teaching a young boy religion does him more harm than if an older man forces himself on said boy and fondles his genatalia (which most of us squarely define as molestation), he has attacked the legitimacy of the concept of sexual harrassment (in his famous "stop whining" comments and remarks about his impatience with the issue of backlash against women getting "inappropriately touched by the water cooler"), and has argued that rape victims shouldn't be considered trustworthy if they were drinking (that a drunk women might be responsible for her fate).

Again, not sure if this limited selection of his vitriol falls into the working definition of "hate speech" on this forum, but it could easily be filed away as imprudent, inappropriate, uncaring, and mean-spirited, at the very least and just to name a few.

Oh, he has said many things that are disagreeable. None of these are examples of hate speech however.

 

[columbus]

Again, not sure if this limited selection of his vitriol falls into the working definition of "hate speech" on this forum, but it could easily be filed away as imprudent, inappropriate, uncaring, and mean-spirited, at the very least and just to name a few.

None of that is remotely hate speech.
And the main reason for Dawkins vehemence, and the reason it gets him cheers from so many other non-theist people, is because it's a response to the regular spewing of real hate speech from religious people who feel entitled. Religion is the single biggest inspiration of truly hateful speech I know about. Dawkins is largely co opting their methods.
Tom

 

[sayak83]

None of that is remotely hate speech.
And the main reason for Dawkins vehemence, and the reason it gets him cheers from so many other non-theist people, is because it's a response to the regular spewing of real hate speech from religious people who feel entitled. Religion is the single biggest inspiration of truly hateful speech I know about. Dawkins is largely co opting their methods.
Tom

I also have the impression that he also has many of the old white male Oxford patrician biases. Not surprising really.

 

[SomeRandom]

Hate speech is speech that express hatred for another group or individual, not just inciting violence.

Technically true, sort of?
Well actually no. Expressing hatred against a group is usually protected in America as a First Amendment right. The Westboro Baptist Church, for example, has practically made a career out of hiding behind the 1st amendment to protect their protests. All of which were ultimately successful. Although they were humorously denied access to Australia, because we don't have anything nearly as strong as the first amendment in our laws.