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

[Curious George]

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.

I get the impression that he is not using the term in a legal sense.

 

[leibowde84]

Oh hey, my old public radio station.

I don't see any reason why anyone should be guaranteed a speaking platform, unless it is a town hall meeting or something where public comment is required.

I think you misread the question. It said "should", not "must". It was asking "should they be given a chance to defend themselves, not should it be required by law.

 

[SomeRandom]

I get the impression that he is not using the term in a legal sense.

Fair enough. In the vernacular sense that does make sense. But charging someone with hate speech is a pretty big label in this day and age. I do think that we should be more careful with how we label something. Especially with all the hyperbole occurring as of late.

 

[Politesse]

I think you misread the question. It said "should", not "must". It was asking "should they be given a chance to defend themselves, not should it be required by law.

Then I revise my response to simply, "I see no reason why they would". I would not expect a chance to "defend myself" if someone cancelled a speaking engagement to which I was a guest. Unless someone has signed a contract, invitations are gifts, not rights. And if there is, I've never seen a contract that required the host not to cancel, only occasionally to compensate monetarily if they do.

I think it would be polite of the host to communicate with me as to why they are cancelling my event (which they did in this case) and I think it is fine that Mr Dawkins wrote a letter back, too - why shouldn't he? But no one's rights, moral, legal, or otherwise, have been violated here, nor are they morally required to conduct some kind of investigation.

An investigation that would be very short in any case, and which they may indeed have conducted. That "Islam is the most evil religion" quote was in the papers just one month ago, it isn't hard to uncover.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since Dawkins goal is to eradicate religion, that would mean one of his goal is to eradicate Religious Forums, because without religion, there is no forum.

So you never noticed our many threads on the history and anthropology of religion? That history wouldn't go away even if religion were to disappear.

I think most of the Games/Pics/Jokes forum would be safe, too.

 

[Sayf_ibn_Umar]

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

I'm always suspicious when I see the "..." used in a quote. Here's what the "..." actually was:

Don't fall for the convention that we're all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits. Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt.

Does anybody think that this was a fair representation of what he says there?

 

[Lyndon]

Two different quotes, Duh!!

 

[Socratic Berean]

I'm always suspicious when I see the "..." used in a quote. Here's what the "..." actually was:



Does anybody think that this was a fair representation of what he says there?

Wrong quote, my friend. His call for mocking and ridicule is widely known, widely cited. Search YouTube...you can watch/listen to him saying it in a public address.

 

[Sayf_ibn_Umar]

Wrong quote, my friend. His call for mocking and ridicule is widely known, widely cited. Search YouTube...you can watch/listen to him saying it in a public address.

No, right quote. My quote came from the transcript (I linked to it) of that public address.

Strange how you don't seem to recognize the actual context, since this is supposedly a "widely known" quote.

 

[Lyndon]

So he only made one public address, how stupid is that???? You linked to a quote from ANOTHER public address, he's made 100s.

 

[Sayf_ibn_Umar]

So he only made one public address, how stupid is that???? You linked to a quote from ANOTHER public address, he's made 100s.

Lyndon, the quote comes from his address at the Reason Rally in 2012. I quoted that.

If you think the quote comes from some other address, then please: which address?

 

[Lyndon]

He said a lot of stupid stuff, I am not crazy enough to try to listen to speech after speech to find where the other member got his quote, obviously not from the address you link to, Rationality is supposed to be an attribute of the scientific type crowd, there's nothing rational about your arguments.

 

[Sayf_ibn_Umar]

He said a lot of stupid stuff, I am not crazy enough to try to listen to speech after speech to find where the other member got his quote, obviously not from the address you link to, Rationality is supposed to be an attribute of the scientific type crowd, there's nothing rational about your arguments.

Why do you say that the quote that Socratic Berean provided is "obviously not from the address" I linked to?

 

[Lyndon]

What a stupid comment, because the quote that Socratic Berean quoted is not in the speech you linked to but comes from another speech, DUH I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

 

[Sayf_ibn_Umar]

What a stupid comment, because the quote that Socratic Berean quoted is not in the speech you linked to but comes from another speech, DUH I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

Lyndon, what's your *argument* for that?

His quote had two snippets:

1 "...mock them, ridicule them, in public... "
2 "...with contempt."

Both are in the speech I linked to.

So why do you say that this quote isn't from that speech?

 

[columbus]

What a stupid comment, because the quote that Socratic Berean quoted is not in the speech you linked to but comes from another speech, DUH I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

Sorry. You are the one looking like the wall here.
@Sayf_ibn_Umar actually provided a link to an actual quote putting @Socratic Berean paraphrased quote mine into context.
Maybe Dawkins actually did put together the words SB attributed to him. But a little tweak of context could make it mean something completely different from the implications. That's why people quote mine. To dishonestly attribute things to people that they don't like.

I don't know what Dawkins actually said. I don't much care about celebrity opinions. But I recognize the signs of a hatchet job.
Tom

 

[Lyndon]

You don't have to "quote mine" Dawkins speech to find absolutely hateful, crazy BS, he says stuff like that all the time, how you can try to defend this A hole is beyond me, it doesn't make a very good case for your atheist beliefs, which I can have no trouble respecting if you don't have to direct all this vitriol at people that believe differently, they way Dawkins does.

 

[Socratic Berean]

No, right quote. My quote came from the transcript (I linked to it) of that public address.

Strange how you don't seem to recognize the actual context, since this is supposedly a "widely known" quote.

I appreciate your zeal for arguing. You seem to be off focus or we are talking past each other. What I have quoted from Dawkins was a matter of international news attention; this is not new material and I am not introducing anything new here.

Here is the full quote:

"Mock them! Ridicule them! In public!
Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits.

Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt."

Here is a link to the full transcript of the speech (he has made the same comments elsewhere):

Transcript of Richard Dawkins’ speech from Reason Rally 2012

Here is a link to a video of Dawkins saying these things:

Here is a link to one article (from among dozens of others that are easy to find using Google) that discusses these very comments:

https://www.quora.com/What-do-athei...on-to-atheists-to-mock-and-ridicule-believers

 

[Sayf_ibn_Umar]

Socratic Berean, you realize that the transcript you linked to is the same transcript that I linked to?

 

[columbus]

What I have quoted from Dawkins was a matter of international news attention; this is not new material and I am not introducing anything new here.

However, in your zeal to demonize Dawkins you aren't hearing what he says.

Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt."

He's clearly advocating for the the mocking of bad ideas. Not the mocking of people, except perhaps the public figures who promote those ideas professionally.
I don't see anything the least bit untoward about that.
@Lyndon
Tom