Sunday, 23 July 2017

Richard Dawkins is dragged into America’s tedious free-speech war

quote [ Just this week his book ‘The Selfish Gene’ was voted the most inspiring science book of all time in a public poll commissioned by the Royal Society. ]

While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech. We apologize for not having had broader knowledge of Dawkins views much earlier.
[SFW] [science & technology] [-1 Boring]
[by 4321@11:49pmGMT]

Comments

Bruceski said @ 12:32am GMT on 24th Jul [Score:3 Underrated]
That's what happens when you look at Early Dawkins instead of Modern Dawkins. He used to do great science (I still re-read my copy of The Ancestor's Tale), but when that came into conflict with the religious fundamentalists he became a lightningrod for all of it and broke/revealed his core self under the pressure. Add in some doubling down and a lack of self-examination and you wind up in the toxic pool of New Atheism.
Hugh E. said @ 1:11am GMT on 24th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
... basically, nobody can speak anywhere ....
and that's where I know the following will be rightwing whining replete with a misinterpretation of the meaning of free speech. To wit, the rest of the article is scant more than a flowery example plucked from the comment section of any internet story.
4321 said @ 2:01am GMT on 24th Jul [Score:1 Underrated]

They just no platformed Richard Dawkins at Berkeley.

At what point are you going to be concerned?


Menchi said @ 7:52am GMT on 24th Jul
If only there were some other way to hear the voice of this poor man that nobody's ever heard of.
Ussmak said @ 10:26am GMT on 24th Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
If only there were some way to convince you and your ilk that you're the authoritarians in this argument.

Ankylosaur said @ 11:58am GMT on 24th Jul [Score:4 Good]
"KPFA (94.1 FM) is a listener-funded progressive talk radio and music radio station located in Berkeley, California, U.S., broadcasting to the San Francisco Bay Area. KPFA airs public news, public affairs, talk, and music programming. The station signed on-the-air April 15, 1949,[1] as the first Pacifica station and remains the flagship station of the Pacifica Radio Network."

"Pacifica Foundation is an American non-profit organization which owns five independently operated, non-commercial, listener-supported radio stations known for their progressive/liberal[1][2] political orientation."

I'm sorry, but I don't see where this station is a publicly owned forum that is legally obligated to provide equal access to all. It appears to be owned by a private organization that is allowed to set its own editorial standards, including who it chooses to associate with by allowing on its broadcasts.

If Fox doesn't let some pro-Muslim speaker come on their cable channel because they disapprove of the things he says (or doesn't find his disagreeableness useful for their narrative), is that authoritarianism? If the Spectator doesn't give a monthly column to a socialist writer are they violating free speech? If the Richard Dawkins Foundation doesn't let Ken Ham have a Bible study forum on their website is that a tedious war on freedom of religion?

Is insisting that KPFA associate themselves with someone they don't wish to not authoritarian? Is there some way to convince your ilk that you're being tedious hypocrites?
midden said @ 1:07pm GMT on 24th Jul
Well, Pacifica Radio canceled their event. And it's, you know, Pacifica Radio. I think the folks at Pacifica have good hearts, but tend to be on the extreme ends of the spectrum on any given issue. They are, among other things, the home of Amy Goodman and the Democracy Now! show. One of their stations is here in DC, WPFW, and from what I've hear there over the years, it doesn't surprise me at all that they would not host Dawkins. It does surprise me that whoever booked him didn't know more about him or his opinions.
4321 said @ 1:49pm GMT on 24th Jul

The problems here are numerous. They begin with the rank hypocrisy of KPFA, who claim in their mission statement, “to promote freedom of the press and serve as a forum for various viewpoints”. This puts the lie to that. The second, more troubling hypocrisy, is the explicit admission that it was Dawkins views on Islam specifically that caused him to be no platformed.

His views on Christianity are equally withering, but a pervasive double standard ensures that disparaging one religion is good, while cracking off about another is bad. This is even more troubling when the one we are not allowed to offend has robust and deadly blasphemy laws in its home countries, and enforces those blasphemy laws vigorously around the globe - by slaughtering Theo Van Gogh, a death sentence for Salman Rushdie for more than 30 years, and turning the offices of Charlie Hebdo into a charnel house.

Make no mistake. Dawkins was no plaformed for blasphemy.

That Berkeley has become another enforcer for those laws is a real cause for concern.

That “progressives” like you, and others on this site, champion that enforcement is dispiriting, if not wholly surprising.

midden said @ 2:14pm GMT on 24th Jul
I don't think you get what I'm saying. Yes, Pacifica is boneheaded for freaking out about Dawkins. It's completely ridiculous. But I'm also putting it in the context of Pacifica Radio, and that with their history it's not at all surprising. I suspect there are plenty of people in the city of Berkeley who would be delighted to see Dawkins speak, with no fear of having their delicate sensibilities bruised.
C18H27NO3 said[1] @ 8:45pm GMT on 24th Jul



As already detailed, Pacifica's mission statement says various viewpoints, not ALL viewpoints. They are a privately owned company, and are under no obligation to cater to those they disagree with. There is no "lie" there. The lie is "fair and balanced" coming from faux news.

Further, Dawkins bashed christianity and it was ok because there was no threat of discrimination or violence towards them. Context means something. There is no double standard. Islam is the religion du jour, just like judaism was the target in the 1930's. They had plenty of free speech in Germany to point fingers and call jews scum. Nobody contested that free speech, and look where it ended.

All this complaining by the right about free speech is that they simply want to be able to blow their dog whistle on a national stage. And that dog whistle is the redefining of racism and bigotry in the name of 'nationalism.' They want a society that is a white, christian, patriarchy. Something this country has abused for the entirety of it's existence. What built this country wasn't elite brits protecting freedom, but elite whites protecting their wealth, ejecting the indigenous peoples, and used slaves and immigrants to further their enrichment. The conservative right just wants to prevent their just reward for all the abuse their ancestors dolled out, and want to continue the abuse using debunked eugenics to justify it.


SnappyNipples said @ 12:24am GMT on 24th Jul
welp...
cluban said @ 10:08am GMT on 24th Jul
Didn't he play "Newkirk" on Hogan's Heroes?
Ankylosaur said @ 12:02pm GMT on 24th Jul [Score:1 Funsightful]
Not allowing the Manson family on Family Feud is an authoritarian attack on freedom of speech!
6969 said @ 8:20pm GMT on 24th Jul
How dare they use their speech to criticize mine? Someone get me to a safe space! I'm a delicate snowflake and can't handle this!
Kama-Kiri said @ 10:24pm GMT on 24th Jul
A more neutral report from the Guardian,

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jul/24/richard-dawkins-event-cancelled-over-his-abusive-speech-against-islam

I don't think numbers deserves downmods for this, I think the topic is interesting and deserving of debate. It's just best not to frame it as a free speech thing but more about whether the intellectual, humanist opposition to Islam as a faith constitutes Islamophobia or not.

The money shot quote from the man himself is,

“I have criticised the appalling misogyny and homophobia of Islam, I have criticised the murdering of apostates for no crime other than their disbelief. Far from attacking Muslims, I understand – as perhaps you do not – that Muslims themselves are the prime victims of the oppressive cruelties of Islamism, especially Muslim women,” wrote the author in his response. “I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that. Why do you give Islam a free pass? Why is it fine to criticise Christianity but not Islam?”

Which appears logically sound, and I'll grant him the basic facts, but still does not 100% convince. It has a whiff of white, middle class, ivory tower prejudice about it. Declaring Muslim women as victims without bothering to consider the opinions of Muslim women on the subject.

Fish said @ 1:13am GMT on 25th Jul

Why is it fine to criticise Christianity but not Islam?”



Declaring Muslim women as victims without bothering to consider the opinions of Muslim women on the subject.

Women burn burqas and men shave their beards as they celebrate escape from ISIS stronghold in Syria

Yeah, where could we ever find a legitimate opinion about Islam's treatment of women and gays?

You're an idiot.

Menchi said @ 5:13am GMT on 25th Jul
Because Islam = ISIS, right?
Just like Christianity = Westboro Baptists.
Kama-Kiri said @ 6:40am GMT on 25th Jul
Unfortunately it's the tabloid-fueled pig-ignorance of people like fish that means we can't have a sensible discussion.

ISIS is not Islam. But the Westboro Baptists analogy isn't entirely appropriate either. ISIS isn't just selectively quoting religious texts and making up the rules as it goes along, as Westboro. It's a very rigorous and strict interpretation of the teachings of the Koran, even Islamic scholars agree on this. It is also a lot closer to "mainstream" Islam, because Islam is more of a monolithic ideological block than Christianity is today. It is not that far off from what is practiced in Saudi Arabia for example.

As as humanist, I cannot accept Islam because Islam does not accept the separation of church and state. Basically it's as simple as that: I refuse to allow any religion to have the keys to the police and judiciary. In Europe many people died for that progress, and anything less is retrograde. The other problem I have with it compared to, the Vatican, is the fundamental intolerance to change. The Pope and Cardinals can update and modernise Christianity to fit the 21st century. That power is simply not given to Islamic religious leaders, because the primacy of the Koran is the ultimate authority is baked into Islam in a way that the bible is not in Christianity.

That's my opinion. If there are any muslims here on SE who want to correct me, I'm ready to listen.
Menchi said @ 6:27am GMT on 26th Jul
Either way, it's a "the whole is identical to the part" fallacy.
Kama-Kiri said @ 6:20am GMT on 25th Jul
Quotation marks dude. Learn to read.

And linking to the Mirror in rebuttal? Are you fucking kidding me?

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.



Posts of Import
Karma
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things

Karma Rankings
ScoobySnacks
HoZay
Paracetamol
lilmookieesquire
Ankylosaur