Cancel Culture

By Canceling Richard Dawkins, the American Humanist Association Has Betrayed Its Values

The drive to punish dissenters from various orthodoxies is itself illiberal.

|

Last week, the American Humanist Association (AHA) stripped British author Richard Dawkins of his 1996 Humanist of the Year award after he made a comment on Twitter that offended some in the transgender community.

"Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values," said the AHA. "His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient."

This is nonsense: Dawkins had raised a point that it is perfectly worthy of discussion, in accordance with the rationalist philosophy of the humanist movement. But it would also have been ridiculous for the organization to punish Dawkins even if the remark had been offensive, given that many of its past awardees have espoused controversial views, and even said insensitive things on Twitter.

Here was Dawkins' tweet, which concerned Rachel Dolezal, a chapter president of the NAACP who engendered controversy for identifying as black even though she was a white woman:

If it's disqualifying to express confusion about progressives' simultaneous embrace of transgender people and vehement rejection of transracial people, I suppose that I will never win a Humanist of the Year award. I wrote the following in my 2019 book, Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trump:

If we accept, as many on the left do, that people can identify as female even though they were born male, why is it unthinkable for people to identify as black when they were born white? How can the left embrace transgender people without even considering the possibility that there could be transracial people? (Race, after all, is more obviously socially constructed than gender. While our conception of gender is at least partly based on biological differences between the sexes, the same is not true for race.)

The point is not to demean transgender people, but to question why people like Dolezal instantly warranted pariah status. Dawkins subsequently clarified that it was not his intention "to ally in any way with Republican bigots in US now exploiting this issue."

But according to the AHA, this clarification evinced "neither sensitivity nor sincerity." Dawkins' name is no longer listed on the website's awardees page.

Perusing this page reveals something interesting: There are far more controversial past winners than Dawkins. The AHA gave Humanist of the Year awards to the author and activist Alice Walker—who promoted anti-Semitic conspiracy theories—and also to Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood who promoted eugenics and white supremacy. Sanger's legacy is so complicated that her own organization is currently disowning her.

The AHA has also given lesser awards to several individuals with a history of provocative statements and bad tweets: Jessica Valenti, Cenk Uygur, and others. To be clear, the AHA is within its rights to give or rescind awards to anyone it wishes, for any reason. But people who support the organization's mission have the same right to criticize it for hypocrisy.

Two such critics are Rebecca Goldstein and Steven Pinker, who won the Humanist of the Year award in 2011 and 2006, respectively. Goldstein and Pinker wrote an open letter to the AHA calling on it to reverse course:

Dawkins did not call for discrimination against or marginalization of any individual or group. And he explicitly denied any intention to disparage anyone or to lend support to transphobic or racist political movements.  Now, it would still be completely appropriate for those of you who objected to the substance of his tweets to criticize them in The Humanist or other forums, explaining the nature of their objections. But to seek to punish, dishonor, or humiliate a writer rather than engage with his words is a betrayal of humanism.

The Humanist Manifesto III declares that "the lifestance of humanism [is] guided by reason." Since no one is infallible, reason requires that a diverse range of ideas be expressed and debated openly, including ones that some people find unfamiliar or uncomfortable. To demonize a writer rather than address the writer's arguments is a confession that one has no rational response to them.

This illiberal response is all the more damaging to an organization that claims to repudiate the repressive practices of religion. It has not been lost on commentators that an association of "freethinkers" has deemed certain thoughts unthinkable, nor that it is enforcing dogmas and catechisms by excommunicating a heretic. The AHA is turning itself into a laughingstock.

Goldstein and Pinker are quite right. The AHA's own values require tolerance of difficult conversations around public policy subjects, rather than a knee-jerk drive to punish dissenters from orthodoxies.

NEXT: The Biden Administration's Obfuscation on Using Clemency To Free Pot Prisoners Is Not a Hopeful Sign

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. At this point… I don’t know if anything more can be said.

    1. Awful people being awful to each other

        1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its SW A earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page…..VISIT HERE

        2. If we accept, as many on the left do, that people can identify as female even though they were born male, why is it unthinkable for people to identify as black when they were born white? How can the left embrace transgender people without even considering the possibility that there could be transracial people?

          Because it is a lot easier to surgically transform a dick into a cunt, do breast implant surgery, and permanently get rid of facial hair via electrolysis than it is to change white skin that puts out straight blonde hair to permanently black skin that puts out tight curly/frizzie black hair.

          1. What does surgery have to do with how differently transgender and trans racial is treated?
            Even this article says race is a social construct. So how can something socially constructed be immutable?

      1. Sort of like this comment section.

        1. You guys should start a victims support group.

          And you know who “you guys” refers to.

        2. i love everybody.

          1. Except KU alumni apparently. It’s OK.

        3. “Sort of like this comment section.”

          More like the TDS-addled lefty shits whining about the comment section.

    2. This comment intentionally left blank.

      1. ^

    3. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its fgt an easy and simple job to do and its earnings A are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

    4. NO Need to recognize the AHA as an entity….anymore than the GOP or political group.

    5. Biology wise a transgender person is lying about their gender. It is a psychological disease called gender dysphoria.

  2. Pinker

    And just so y’all know, Pinker is like, one innocuous tweet from being canceled. He’s been on probation for a good while now.

    1. The last bout of PC insanity lasted a few years and then everyone snapped out it. Will the same thing happen now, or is this the new normal?

      1. It’s not necessarily normal, but it is now mandatory.

      2. Will the same thing happen now, or is this the new normal?

        Same thing will happen, but it may take a little while.

        1. You’re going to have to explain how this hasn’t been a continuous decline for two decades straight now.

          1. I was in academia two decades ago. It was bad then, it got better for a while, and now it’s getting worse again. These things go in cycles. I predict we’ll spend a lot of the ’20s making fun of this shit, and then we’ll face a new wave of it in the ’30s.

            1. They are pushing this stuff strong as early as elementary school now. it isn’t contained to just crap majors in college anymore.

              1. They are pushing this stuff strong as early as elementary school now.

                Yup. That’s how the pendulum swings. You want to have these silly conversations in your college classes? Fine. Wait, you’re teaching my five-year-old what?

                1. Thread

                  https://twitter.com/polotek/status/1386749131570307072?s=19

                  More white guys in tech deciding that their company and their money is gonna be separate from what’s happening in the world. – Changes at Basecamp

                  1. Does it suck being such a racist piece of sh!t? Or is the fascism so much fun for you that the racism doesn’t bother you?

                    Three cheers for Basecamp, for rediscovering that they’re a company.

                    FOAD to all the people who think that “white guys” is a morally meaningful description

            2. I remember having to read this shit in academia two decades ago–the problem is that a lot of my classmates ended up becoming college professors and became the ideology’s chief proselytizers.

              1. the problem is that a lot of my classmates ended up becoming college professors and became the ideology’s chief proselytizers.

                And sadly, that largely describes the ones who understood the least of what they were reading.

      3. The last bout of PC insanity lasted a few years and then everyone snapped out it.

        Was this before or after The Weather Underground?

        1. It was the 90s. I can still remember being at a party around Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and some 90s version of an SJW having a complete melt down while having a conversation about race with a friend of mine.

          You might remember the flavor of the day was race didn’t exist. And my friend brought up ye old scientific classifications like “negroid, mongoloid, caucasoid, etc.”. And she went full rave mode and made everyone she came to the party leave with her. Because words and Mike disagreements.

          Then the early 00s it seemed to simmer down for a while outside of the most hardcore.

          1. * mild disagreements

          2. Race denial actually makes more sense scientifically than Wokeism, which holds that “race” is both a fixed construct and all that matters.

            1. I thinks it’s been clearly established that science is racist.

    2. Didn’t they try to cancel Pinker over something last year? The difference, though, is Dawkins has always been abrasive and confrontational, whereas Pinker seems quite humble despite being roughly similar in scientific contributions.

      1. Yeah there was open letter to Linguistic Society of America to rescind his fellowship. Thankfully the petition was denied but many of my former friends and colleagues signed that letter (though apparently also many names were faked).

  3. The gulag is for everyone. The first train cars on their way to exile, incidentally, are always jam packed with people that naively believed it would never happen to them — indeed, those that cheered from the sidelines as others were whisked away and cancelled.

    Love how Dawkins threw in the virtue signal about the evil Republicans, even as the liberals crusade to cancel his existence. Fucking clown.

    1. Yep, there’s lots of bigots, and the Republicans do not have a monopoly on them.

      1. Um, the Republicans do not have even 10% of the bigots.

        Do you define diversity by skin color? They you’re a racist piece of garbage, a bigot, and a Leftists in good standing

    2. Ice picks are reactionary.

    3. Obviously, those who cheered from the sidelines as others were whisked away cannot be in the first car — but don’t worry, there will be another along in a moment.

  4. I don’t know anything about the AHA or it’s membership base. I do know people respond to incentives. Does this imply that the AHA’s membership base (at least in or close to a majority) is now in the CRT camp? I think that would more alarming than the statement itself.

    I don’t know how many people the ACLU have lost to their wokeness. I suspect though that, given how consistently woke the ACLU has been for the last 3-4 years, the membership base their must be clearly majority woke.

    This is an insidious infectious religion. It’s going to be a long fight before it’s uprooted.

    1. “This is an insidious infectious religion. It’s going to be a long fight before it’s uprooted.”

      First we must acknowledge what religion it is. So long as people like Soave cannot even do that then the fight has not even started.

    2. The ACLU sent out a membership survey recently, and I told them in no uncertain terms that I thought my beloved ACLU has lost it’s way over CRT, that it is racist on it’s face, and that far from being the ACLU of Bradenberg v Ohio, their support of CRT would take us back to Plessy v. Ferguson – and I would not be renewing my membership until they get back on track.

      I can’t be the only member that feels this way.

  5. They mischaracterized his statements.

    I suspect Dawkins is used to being the smartest guy in the room and this is just another example.

    1. Given who he associates with he is the smartest by default, as long as you don’t include the chairs they sit on

      1. Or their rock collections, if they collect rocks.

    2. They mischaracterized his statements.

      Woke crusaders mischaracterizing people’s statements? Surely you jest.

      1. Well, exactly who is Dawkins to think he is an authority on the meaning of his own words?

        He was warned about this at least a decade ago, but chose to ignore it.

  6. And Reason had a hand in creating this dogma and the inquisition that goes with it. With Dawkins quote disavowed that was supporting “Republican bigots”, have fun with the wolves you have been thrown to, asshole.

    1. Woody Allen said, “Intellectuals are like the mafia; they only kill their own.” It’s not 100% true any more (if it ever was), but it is funny, in a queasy way, to see Dawkins’s attempt to virtue-signal be ignored by the only people who would ever have taken it positively.

      1. Dawkins thinks he can determine the bounds of acceptable debate by pointing and othering.

        He really misjudged his situation, but as I mentioned earlier. He was warned and chose to ignore the warnings.

        Soave may not be next, but he not far down the list.

        Time to wake up and actually fight.

  7. Dawkins should have been canceled years ago because of his Islamophobia.

    #LibertariansForCancelCulture

    1. And sexual assault, but hey no big.

      1. He did pound mr. garrison pretty hard.

        Whoops. Mrs. garrison. Ohhhh…… now I see where his transphobia comes from. Damn.

    2. He is not Islamophobic if you mean afraid of Muslims, nor am I. What he and I both are is rejecting of and opposed to the Islamic religion.

      1. The only true religion is Pastafarianism. Prove me wrong.

        1. Couscous is just a rice wanabe.

        2. Pasta is great, but is nothing without Marinara, Alfredo, Parmesan, and Meatballs, the Holy Quad!

  8. Dawkins violated the tenets of his religion, so of course he’s now a pariah.

    1. You are begging the question by assuming that Dawkins had a religion.

      1. Liberalism is a religion.

        1. Ah yes, the claim that one vague, ill-defined label is a subset of another vague, ill-defined label.

          1. How many times did you use the term trump cultist?

        2. Blasphemy is still an offense, but the gods are different.

          1. And catholics have atonement for original sin. Woke religion if you were born white you are damned to hell no mater what

            1. Wrong. You can “atone” by pointing at another white person and screaming “Racist!!!”

      2. Dawkins 100% has a religion. It’s called “Atheism,” and he’s one of history’s most dogmatic High Priests.

        1. *knock*knock*

          I’d like to talk to you today about Atheism and its role in your life.

          1. OK, the Mel Brooks line below and this one here made me lol. Well done.

        2. Although some religions do not require belief in a God and thus allow Atheism, e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, and Confuscianism, Atheism by itself is not a religion.

          Atheism is simply lack of belief in the existence of a God or Gods. There are no positive beliefs or disbeliefs necessarily entailed by Atheism.

          1. Atheism by itself is not a religion.

            Prove it.

            1. Points to dictionary.

              1. When my college freshman would use dictionary definitions as arguments, I would dock them a full grade.

              2. If I’d asked you to prove 2+2 = 4, would you have pointed to the dictionary? If you’d asked a Christian to prove the existence of God and they pointed to the dictionary, would you have accepted that? Does your dictionary have a definition of *A*theism? Because mine has a several definitions of *a*theism and the majority include the word ‘doctrine’ either explicitly or implicitly.

                You aren’t doing yourself or The Encogitationer any favors.

            2. Famously, atheism is a religion the way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

              1. Neurotic?

                Apt

              2. Stamp collectors you say? Lick it before you stick it.

              3. Famously, theism is a religion the way not collecting stamps is a hobby.

              4. Some people make careers out of not collecting stamps.

              5. Correct, if you are the sort to walk around declaring your “not stamp collection” is just the way it should be

              6. If your hobby was hand-delivering letters in order to avoid using stamps, sure.

                Agnosticism isn’t a religion. Atheism is as much a religion as theism.

                1. We’ll find out more about the hobby of delivering stamp less mail after the Maricopa County ballot audit…

            3. Religion is a set of beliefs regarding the Supernatural. Atheism is a lack of belief in the particular Supernatural being call God or Gods. Big difference.

              1. Atheism is a lack of belief in the particular Supernatural being call God or Gods.

                Most things in the end come down to how you define your terms, but if were a quibbling type I would call this “agnosticism,” with “atheism” being the positive affirmation that there is no supreme being.

              2. And I would question the definition “Religion is a set of beliefs regarding the Supernatural” as simplistic, and designed with carving out an exception for Atheism specifically in mind. One might also go with “Religion is a set of beliefs and principles that serve to define a community and regulate its social interactions” in which case “Atheism” 100% is a religion.

              3. “Religion is a set of beliefs regarding the Supernatural”

                Babbies first philosophical definition.

                Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements.
                Agnostics and atheists can both hold beliefs which comport to many of those beliefs and behaviors.

                1. Agnostics and atheists can both hold beliefs which comport to many of those beliefs and behaviors.

                  More critically, despite their own denial, humans cannot exist without beliefs in such systems. The core of the scientific method is the hypothesis, a thing that, until thoroughly tested and explained, is de facto supernatural.

                  1. Science starts with the hypothesis, but doesn’t believe the hypothesis or act upon it without doing the homework of finding the evidence that proves the hypothesis. That is what distinguishes science from dogma, both religious and political.

                    And hypotheses are not supernatural since they refer to entities and phenomena in the only realm where anything can exist i.e. the Natural Universe.

                    1. doesn’t believe the hypothesis or act upon it without doing the homework

                      Doing homework isn’t an act? Forget proper/common nouns, you’re having trouble with verbs.

                      That is what distinguishes science from dogma, both religious and political.

                      The non-act of doing homework?

                      And hypotheses are not supernatural since they refer to entities and phenomena in the only realm where anything can exist i.e. the Natural Universe.

                      They are definitively supernatural. There is no Universal Law of Gravitation, just gravity, the Law is an idea that only exists in people’s heads. The fact that the Law has its limits is definitive proof that the Law and reality are not a unified set, some part of each exists outside the other.

                2. Who’s Babbie? Wasn’t he a character in a Sinclair Lwwis novel? And wasn’t he a conventionalist on religion?

                  Theists and Atheists both can hold beliefs and practices that are religious-like, but Theism or Atheiem by themselves do not religion make.

              4. “Atheism is a lack of belief”

                No we went over this the other day. Atheism is a disbelief or outright denial of the existence of supreme being(s).

                That is not the same as lack of belief.

                Both of us lack belief in krasgenaskeristiss. You because you have no idea what it is, and I because I just made it up.

                The same cannot be said for God, or the gods.

              5. Nope

                Atheism is the assertion that there is no God.

                That is a positive assertion, and it’s one based on faith

              6. A Christian disbelieves in thousands of gods. An atheist disbelieves in one more god.

          2. i>There are no positive beliefs or disbeliefs necessarily entailed by Atheism.

            Except the “there is no god” part.

            1. Positive Atheism asserts “There is no God or Gods,” however, not all Atheism is Positive Atheism. Therefore, the assertion “There is no God or Gods” is not necessarily entailed in the concept of Atheism.

              1. Atheism, as an idea, as an organization, as a belief system, stands for nothing.

              2. Positive Atheism asserts “There is no God or Gods,” however, not all Atheism is Positive Atheism. Therefore, the assertion “There is no God or Gods” is not necessarily entailed in the concept of Atheism.

                Do you have a book of some sort that lays out these distinctions?

                1. As a matter of fact, yes.

                  George H. Smith’s book Atheism: The Case Against God is the source of my definitions, and his tight, logically-argued work was what sealed the deal for me on Atheism.

                  George H. Smith also has done much work on the scholarship and history of libertarian ideas and for some time frequently wrote for The Voluntaryist.. Highly recommended.

                  1. So, you have a text that your faith community has largely agreed defines the relevant concepts and maps what the community does and doesn’t hold to be true about metaphysical questions like the existence of a supreme being?

                    Is there maybe a council or an organization somewhere of which I can become a member that is made up of like-minded people who ascribe to the doctrines presented in this book who can further elaborate them for me and perhaps point me to other texts that the community feels will bolster my faith in the non-existence of the supreme being?

            2. “…Except the “there is no god” part.”

              And those who deny the existence of Santa Claus are members of a religion?
              Those who deny UFOs are alien spacecraft? Those who really are dead certain we’re not going to get energy from unicorn farts?
              You have a view of religion which is, I’m sure self-serving, but is also ignorant in the extreme.

              1. And those who deny the existence of Santa Claus are members of a religion?

                If they organize around that principle and then preach it to people?

                Yes.

                You have a view of religion which is, I’m sure self-serving, but is also ignorant in the extreme.

                I’m sorry – did I make an ignorant mistake in my characterization of your religion? Do you have some resources you can point me to that will Dispel my Ignorance regarding Atheism?

          3. “Atheism” is often used by “antitheists” – those who believe that god(s) is not – and requires an even greater leap of faith, not to mention rejection of human nature, than theism.

            1. No belief means no belief, thus no faith.

              1. So, when they say “There is no god.”, they don’t believe it.

              2. It takes an infinite amount of faith to believe something you are fundamentally incapable of knowing

          4. Atheism is simply lack of belief in the existence of a God or Gods. There are no positive beliefs or disbeliefs necessarily entailed by Atheism.

            So those who positively believe that “there is no god” are not atheists?

            1. One can simply lack belief, which is called Negative Atheism, or one can actively and consciously assert “There is no God or Gods,” which is called Positive Atheism.

              Antitheism is moral opposition to God or Gods, whether or not one believes in the existence of such.

              1. ^ See, this sounds very much like a religion to me.

                1. So how is that?

                  1. So how is that?

                    It is a clearly defined set of beliefs regarding unprovable matters that is being used to organize people into mutually recognized communities of belief.

                    These capitalized categories of clearly defined belief sets even bespeak a written source for these categories common to the belief community.

                    I call that “Religion.”

                2. “See, this sounds very much like a religion to me.”

                  This says tons about your defensiveness and absolutely nothing about your claim.

                  1. This says tons about your defensiveness

                    Yeah – I’m not religious. You’re barking up the wrong tree.

                3. It certainly makes trinitarianism/non-trinitarianism seem exceedingly concrete/pragmatic.

            2. Positive Atheists both lack belief in a God or Gods and positively assert that there is no God or Gods.

              Negative Atheism is mere lack of belief in a God or Gods and is the default position of Atheism, not to mention the default position of all human beings at birth, since no one is born believing in a God or Gods or anything else.

              1. lack belief in a God or Gods

                ^ Not a faith-based position.

                positively assert that there is no God or Gods.

                ^ Faith-based position.

                no one is born believing in a God or Gods or anything else.

                That is demonstrably untrue. What society in the history of humanity has been Atheist? If people have to be taught about made-up gods that they don’t naturally believe in, who did the first teaching of the first made-up gods and to whom did they do this teaching?

                Aux contraire, infants are born believing they are the Supreme Being. Raising humans largely involves disabusing them of this assumption.

                1. This was quite an interesting discussion of whether atheism is a religion or not. While not settled, I hope both sides can agree that anyone who (u ironically) states “I’m spiritual but not religious” is a good lay.

              2. Wrong. That’s agnosticism

          5. “Atheism is simply lack of belief in the existence of a God or Gods. There are no positive beliefs or disbeliefs necessarily entailed by Atheism.”

            Wrong

            Agnosticism is the belief that one does not know whether or not there is a God

            Atheism is the positive and affirmative belief that one knows there is not God.

            Since one can not in fact know that, it’s a unprovable, faith based statement about the divine

            Which is to say, it’s a religion

  9. The AHA is pretty clear that it’s not just an organization for discussion of rationalist philosophy. It’s a private organization that believes in certain things, it’s only natural it might revoke its award when someone seems to violate those beliefs. That’s how free association works.

    https://americanhumanistcenterforeducation.org/ten-commitments/

    1. Critical Thinking

      “I will practice good judgment by asking questions and thinking for myself.””

      1. Yes, but it also says things like “True peace involves an intense commitment to social justice and affirms the human rights and personal autonomy of all people,” “our personal responsibility to foster a healthy and dignified life for everyone in our global community,” “Empathy promotes tolerance, consideration, and compassion amongst us all,” etc., and sometimes asking questions might be in violation with one or more of those.

        1. Perhaps they should offer a ranked list to indicate that the critical thinking component only applies if the thinking harmonizes with the doctrines implied by the other principles.

          1. It seems to me to be quite reasonable to hold that one should ask questions but not if asking them is done so as to deny the human rights and personal autonomy of some people.

            1. How the heck does a question do that?

              I ask, because, sure, I could see answers doing something that could be characterized that way, or at least suggesting actions that would.

              1. Do black persons have souls?

                See now?

                1. I think even you see that Dawkins’ question was in no way similar to “Do black persons have souls?”

                  1. 1. Brett said he couldn’t see how a question could give offense, so I gave him an example that I thought would leave no doubt.

                    2. I think a trans person might argue that Dawkin’s sort of question does something very similar to my example, denying the identity of a person is pretty serious stuff.

                    1. Those are great points. I think the point Dawkins was raising is, why are we denying the identity of Rachel Dolezal?

                    2. Well, if a person is offended by what Dolezal did or finds the criticisms of her to not be a big deal *and* then you equate that with trans identity you can see why trans persons might be offended.

                    3. Do atheist believe in souls therefore making it a valid question.

                    4. There are only two genders. There is no science to the contrary. If someone wants to create an ‘identity’ of the other gender, sure, they can do that. But it’s just pretend.

                    5. The Humanist Manifesto III declares that “the lifestance of humanism [is] guided by reason.”

                      So, here’s your problem:

                      I don’t give a shit if my question gives offense to you. Any more than you care that your positions give offense to me.

                      The AHA can be guided by reason, or it can be guiding by feelings.

                      People who think that their feelings trump reason in public policy are worthless piles of shit.

                      The AHA has established they are such

                  2. Do ginger black trans people have souls?

                    1. You could have stopped at “ginger,” for the answer is “no.”

                    2. Ok. Do ginger Korean trans people have Seouls?

                    3. Only the southern ones.

                    4. Aka “daywalkers”

                2. And how did Dawkins’ remarks deny the human rights or personal autonomy of anyone?

                  1. By saying trans persons literally are not the gender that they identify as.

                    1. And you feel that this is equivalent to denying that they’re humans? Or equivalent to questioning the humanity of black people?

                      Would the general question of “Do people have souls?” be discrediting? I imagine it’s felt to be worse when it crosses over into specifics. Though I also imagine that the AHA and Dawkins both don’t believe in transcendental souls anyway.

                    2. I don’t think it’s equivalent, rather it’s pretty important.

                      And I imagine if he had wrote ‘is transracialism a real thing to be respected’ then there would have been less to do about it.

                    3. That’s biology denying them, not Dawkins.

                    4. Apparently I can’t reply any deeper in the chain than this, don’t know why.

                      Okay, so we agree that questioning whether this is a different thing from directly questioning the humanity of a group of people. Logically it proceeds from that this is not then denying their humanity. Since, those would be equivalent statements.

                      So, now we’re at it’s pretty important. Would it be denying their human rights or personal autonomy to disagree them on some belief they hold? Is it because it’s a belief they hold about themselves? I had a student awhile back, a smart kid, but was unconvinced of this fact. They sincerely believed they were stupid and I had to repeatedly convince them otherwise. I directly contradicted their lived belief and experience of their reality.

                      Was this dehumanizing or removing their personal autonomy?

                      If had raised the question “Is sex real?” then answered yes, would that have crossed a line?

                    5. By saying trans persons literally are not the gender that they identify as.

                      This conclusion or assertion is more dehumanizing than Dawkins. Dawkins’ assertion is that it’s not up to him and/or is up for debate, this posits that it without Dawkins’ approval, their feelings/desires/wishes are irrelevant.

                    6. Because they’re not. It’s just pretend. What part of that don’t you get?

                    7. By saying trans persons literally are not the gender that they identify as.

                      Which in no way deprived them of any rights or autonomy. It was a tweet, not a magical incantation.

                    8. They’re not

                      Your feelings don’t matter. Reality does.

                      You do not have a “human right” to force me to lie. That’s an assault on my personal autonomy.

                      Your personal autonomy gives you the right to lie to yourself. It doesn’t give you the right to demand that others join into your lies, your delusions, your fantasies.

                      Being told that you’re wrong is not a violation of your personal autonomy

                3. Do black persons have souls?

                  Well, do they?

                  1. Should black people go back to Africa?

                    1. “Marcus Garvey has entered the chat”

                    2. Wakanda looks pretty good.

                4. Do black persons have souls?

                  See now?

                  Unless you’re asserting the question removes their souls, no.

                5. Do black persons have souls?

                  As much as anyone does. Next question please.

                6. “Do black persons have souls?”

                  Yes, but progressives don’t.

                7. Do black persons have souls?

                  And now you have no rights or autonomy.

                8. Definitely a catch 22. If you’re a secular humanist then presumably the answer is “no” since souls don’t exist. But then of course you’re a racist. If you answer “yes” that perhaps saves you from racism but also outs you as a religious nut.

                9. “Do black persons have souls?

                  See now?”

                  So, did you stop beating your *wife/husband/child* yet?

                10. “Do black people have souls?”

                  What sort of pathetic loser thinks that question should be allowed to be asked?

                  Let me guess, you don’t think the AHA should cancel someone for asking “Do white people / Trump supporters have souls?”

                  Thank you for establishing you have no principles, and neither does the AHA

                  1. That was “should NOT be allowed to ask”

                    Short version, any question that does not imply false facts (“have you stopped beating your wife”, when have never beaten your wife, for example) can be asked.

                    Anyone who tries to block that is in the wrong.

                    You’re free to ignore questions. You’re free to point out that a question is really stupid, or based on a failed world view.

                    But if you attack people for their speech, then you are the intolerant one

            2. one should ask questions but not if asking them is done so as to deny the human rights and personal autonomy of some people.

              Exactly – they should say something to the effect of “our commitment to critical thinking ends at certain other ideological commitments we already have, but we encourage critical thinking within those bounds. To a certain extent.”

              1. I think most serious persons know that broad ethical positions will at times be in tension.

                1. If “serious persons” think certain thoughts and questions should be forbidden-in-advance because certain principles are inviolable axioms that are beyond examination, then I have no interest in “serious persons” and their “thoughts.”

                  When a society is presenting itself as a Humanist and Rationalist society dedicated to free thought overcoming the dogma of religions, then I expect them to be upfront about the propositions that they feel transcend logic and discussion. And be up front about “critical thinking” being subordinate to the other values being advanced.

                  1. Again, I’m fascinated by the unfamiliarity people here seem to be having with the idea that some discussions can be pretty offensive. I mean, if I say ‘we can talk about Jewish success but if you try to talk about Jewish domination of many industries you will be vilified’ then, yeah I think many Jews are going to be offended.

                    Take an example from everyday life: let’s say your wife thinks of herself as more fit than she is. Are you looking forward to having a completely rational discussion with her about how she’s not nearly as fit as she thinks she is? Because she’s probably not going to be, I can tell you that. I guess you would think you and her would be ‘irrational’ but I’d find you both to be quite normally human.

                    1. Easy answer. From a libritarian perspective there is no conversation too offensive to mandate that we are not alowd to talk about it

                    2. Again, I’m fascinated by the unfamiliarity people here seem to be having with the idea that some discussions can be pretty offensive.

                      I’m fascinated by the idea that certain subsets of people don’t deserve to ever have their feelings hurt.

                    3. I’m fascinated by the unfamiliarity people here seem to be having with the idea that some discussions can be pretty offensive.

                      I think you’re misdiagnosing the notion that just because a discussion can be offensive that doesn’t mean it should be off limits.

                      Think in terms of “white fragility” discussions and maybe you’ll start to see what I mean.

                      Just to make it perfectly explicit, though, don’t you think a lot of white people are offended by the notion of “white fragility?” I’m going to guess that you see “so what” as a perfectly legitimate response to that.

                      And I’ve got news for you: you’re not my wife, and neither is the AHS, so I’m not going to be that concerned about maintaining our domestic bliss.

                      If you “we can talk about Jewish success but if you try to talk about Jewish domination of many industries you will be vilified” my response will be

                      “That’s true. Why do you think that is?”

                    4. Also, I’d question the presumption “if you talk about Jewish domination of many industries you will be vilified.” I’ve had that conversation with folks and have not been vilified. I’ve had it with Jewish people. The problem with that question is not really the question itself, why are Jewish people, or Indian People, or Chinese People, so dominant in certain industries? Why different groups perform differently is the field of sociology basically. That when many people ask that question they immediately follow it up with “They’re a cabal and need to be destroyed” tends to be the actual issue with that line of questioning. And even that, we should hear and argue against. Letting it fester helps no one.

                      And then, in your example of my wife (though I’m still desperately single! No one here is surprised.), you get at the question of a polite lie. And it brings up the distinction made many times before between, “Should you be polite and treat folks with their given pronouns?” and “Does one’s identifying as a different sex reflect a reality?” These are two very different questions.

                      And in the case of my fake out-of-shape wife, our refusal to speak or not speak of it does nothing to change the actual facts of the matter.

                    5. Again, I’m fascinated by the unfamiliarity people here seem to be having with the idea that some discussions can be pretty offensive. I mean, if I say ‘we can talk about Jewish success but if you try to talk about Jewish domination of many industries you will be vilified’ then, yeah I think many Jews are going to be offended.

                      That’s because you’re being wilfully stupid and trying to dress it up like you’re being intelligent. The question/issue isn’t whether someone can be offended. The question is whether the right (not) to be offended supercedes the right to free speech, whether the intent/ability to inflict actual harm in response to mere offense is an escalation of hostility and/or justified, and whether any/all of the above is intellectually or rationally consistent.

                    6. From a libritarian perspective there is no conversation too offensive to mandate that we are not alowd to talk about it

                      I’d go further and say libertarian is tangential, the notion of taboo is inconsistent with rational human thought. You can’t say you’re a rational humanist and then declare any given topic taboo, can’t say you don’t believe in the supernatural and then say that questioning the existence of race and gender as distinct from the objectivity of biology is forbidden.

                    7. That when many people ask that question they immediately follow it up with “They’re a cabal and need to be destroyed” tends to be the actual issue with that line of questioning. And even that, we should hear and argue against. Letting it fester helps no one.

                      Exactly this.

                      BTW, welcome back BUCS! Nice to see you again.

                    8. You can’t say you’re a rational humanist and then declare any given topic taboo, can’t say you don’t believe in the supernatural and then say that questioning the existence of race and gender as distinct from the objectivity of biology is forbidden.

                      Thank you. This is what I’ve been trying to say, but I keep garbling it.

                    9. Again, I’m fascinated by the unfamiliarity people here seem to be having with the idea that some discussions can be pretty offensive.

                      I don’t see any evidence of any such unfamiliarity on anyone’s part. What I do see evidence of is the fact that you’re not bright enough to understand that you being offended by a subject in no way means that nobody should discuss it.

                    10. I’m fascinated by the idea that certain subsets of people don’t deserve to ever have their feelings hurt.

                      Red Rocks White Privilege here captures, with this quote, the crux of the post-Trump conservative movement, which is, to whit, the fight for the right to be an unrepenting asshole.

                    11. Red Rocks White Privilege here captures, with this quote, the crux of the post-Trump conservative movement, which is, to whit, the fight for the right to be an unrepenting asshole.

                      Were you this much of a whiny-ass bitch in elementary school, too?

                    12. (I think this point can be discussed without reference to Donald Trump.)
                      You think another commenter is an asshole. I bet he disagrees, and probably thinks you’re an asshole. A libertarian would say that you are both entitled to your opinions, and leave it at that. You, on the other hand, want to use government force to shut up anyone you consider an asshole. In my book, that makes you the biggest asshole in the room.

                    13. Chipper Morning Wood
                      I’m fascinated by the idea that certain subsets of people don’t deserve to ever have their feelings hurt.

                      Red Rocks White Privilege here captures, with this quote, the crux of the post-Trump conservative movement, which is, to whit, the fight for the right to be an unrepenting asshole.

                      Chipper Morning Wood here captures the core hypocrisy of the Left, that’s been on display for over a decade.

                      If you hurt Chipper’s feelings, you’re an asshole.

                      If Chipper hurts you, it’s justified.

                      I’ll use little words, Chipper, so hopefully you can understand:

                      Either no one may be insulted / having their feelings hurt, or anyone can be a target.

                      Since you of the left are constantly on the attack against those you disagree with (just see all the mean and nasty things you all said about Dawkins), that means that anyone can be a target.

                      A worthless bigot (like you) thinks that the people he approves of get protection, and the people she doesn’t approve of, don’t.

                      Because they’re not really human, so they don’t have human rights, unlike the people you like.

                      When the Left stops being assholes to everyone who disagrees with them, then you can complain about the other side. Until then?

                      FOAD

                2. I don’t know if “one’s sex is a social construct but one’s race is immutable” constitutes a “broad ethical position” so much as “the conventional wisdom of the Wokerati”, but I do it is not a express commitment of the AHA.

                3. Nope

                  If you’re committed to critical thinking, then you value that over people’s feelings.

                  If you value your ideological commitments over your principles, that’s because you don’t in fact have any principles

            3. You’ve just stomped on the personal autonomy of the people who wish to ask those questions

              Which means the you do not, in fact, value personal autonomy

        2. How is “asking questions” a problem?

          1. You can’t see how a person can give offense asking a question? Come on. Why are you so fucking retarded?

            1. They’re libertarians, honey. That means super amounts of freedom for cis white men, and whatever they deem necessary for the rest of us.

              1. You forgot to take your brain pills again, didn’t you?

              2. That means super amounts of freedom for cis white men, and whatever they deem necessary for the rest of us.

                Please point me to the libertarian who argues that human rights are only for white men. I’ll wait.

            2. The point isn’t that some questions may offend some people. The point is that we should not be censoring individuals for asking questions, even if those questions are offensive. We, as human beings, should always be asking questions, and we certainly should not censor questions based on a certain ideological viewpoint. “Why do I have to wear a yellow star on my jacket?” When we stop asking questions we are in big trouble.

        3. our personal responsibility to foster a healthy and dignified life for everyone in our global community

          Ah, yes. The “personal responsibility” to affirm the fantasies of others in the real world.

          Fuck off.

          1. Ah, the brave teller of truths, people’s feelings and well being be damned.

            Fuck off back at ya.

            1. Enabling delusion in the face of physical reality isn’t contributing to anyone’s well-being.

            2. people’s feelings and well being be damned

              It certainly can’t be spiritual malaise that affects them. So is it choler, bad humours or negative vibes, man?

              I would think a rational humanist of all people would understand that people’s feelings and (mental) well being are completely within their own control.

        4. Indeed terms like “social justice” are so loaded. I certainly don’t believe most of what comes under “social justice” is justice at all. If you have to accept those notions without question to be considered a humanist in good standing then that rules out a LOT of critical thinking.

        5. Which is to say, that they lied when they said “I will practice good judgment by asking questions and thinking for myself.”

          “True peace involves an intense commitment to social justice and affirms the human rights and personal autonomy of all people,”

          Ah, so they supported Masterpiece Cakeshop when the owners fought for their personal autonomy not to have anything to do with a same sex “marriage”?

          No, of course not. Because they lie about that, too

    2. And while the AHA is free to associate with whom it chooses, they should be called out for their hypocrisy so that others may freely choose to dissociate with the AHA. This article does nothing more than that; inform it’s readers of the hypocrisy of the AHA.

      This is the way that we beat cancel culture, not through government mandates against social media.

      1. I’m not sure there’s hypocrisy at all here, but I do agree that to the extent that cancel culture is a problem it shouldn’t be fought via government mandates.

        1. I think Goldstein and Pinker said it best:

          The Humanist Manifesto III declares that “the lifestance of humanism [is] guided by reason.” Since no one is infallible, reason requires that a diverse range of ideas be expressed and debated openly, including ones that some people find unfamiliar or uncomfortable. To demonize a writer rather than address the writer’s arguments is a confession that one has no rational response to them.

          This illiberal response is all the more damaging to an organization that claims to repudiate the repressive practices of religion. It has not been lost on commentators that an association of “freethinkers” has deemed certain thoughts unthinkable, nor that it is enforcing dogmas and catechisms by excommunicating a heretic. The AHA is turning itself into a laughingstock.

          1. I think Pinker is making the mistake of thinking the AHA is a debating society for atheists. It’s, instead, long considered itself in large part an ethical organization.

            1. It’s, instead, long considered itself in large part an ethical organization.

              So . . . an “ethical organization” with certain inviolable doctrines and principles that are beyond question or criticism?

              And this is an anti-religious institution?

              1. Uh, yeah, ethical organizations are not going to give what they see as unethical behavior a pass because it’s framed as ‘just asking questions.’ That seems quite normal.

                1. ethical organizations are not going to give what they see as unethical behavior a pass

                  Are you familiar with the term “circular argument?”

                  What if “ethical” is “recognizing people’s biological gender even when they themselves don’t?”

                  If I form a society in which I declare that to be an ethical principle, is it now beyond debate?

                  Or does the idea of a “Humanist Society” that presents itself as a community of rationalists imply that these ethics have a rational foundation that could be explicitly laid out when questioned?

                  1. You could find that recognizing people’s biological gender even when they themselves don’t to be ethical or you could find it to be insulting people about something very important to them. It’s at least reasonable to think the latter, and if you do then you aren’t going to give that a pass just because it’s put in the form of a sort of question.

                    And yes, rationalists not only can be cognizant and respectful of persons feelings and well being but almost always are. Even Spock does that.

                    1. And yes, rationalists not only can be cognizant and respectful of persons feelings and well being but almost always are. Even Spock does that.

                      Spock is a character in a pop culture franchise, not a real person.

                    2. You could find that recognizing people’s biological gender even when they themselves don’t to be ethical or you could find it to be insulting people about something very important to them.

                      Great, so if I form a society in which I declare that to be an ethical principle, is it now beyond debate?

              2. “And this is an anti-religious institution?”

                It has never been and anti-religious institution.

                One the one hand it has been a “no dogma can escape scrutiny” institution. But on the other hand it has largely been am anti-(some)-religions institution. Thus leaving some dogmas largely untouched.

                In that sense they have merely added to the list of proscribed topics.

            2. So, getting back to the original point raised by Dawkins:

              (1) Do you think what Rachel Dolezal did was harmful or deserving of condemnation?
              (2) If yes, was it so contagiously and destructively bad that it’s unethical to even discuss *why* her actions were bad?

    3. “Behold, the Fifteen *crash*… the Ten Commitments…”

  10. I identify as a dolphin. Any attempt to prove I am not a dolphin -including the use a science- is just you being a cisspecies bigot motivated by hate. If you don’t agree with my reality, you will be canceled.

    1. South Park did it!

  11. Don’t worry Kofi Anna on, Yasser arafrat, and Obama will not be canceled from their Nobel peace prizes.

  12. According to The Daily Mail, Richard Dawkins didn’t regard the “Humanist of the Year Award” as needing a mention in his Curriculum Vitae. So it looks like he’s living large through his “cancellation.”

    If you get “cancelled” and don’t give a damn, does it make a noise in the woods that would disturb the Pope while he’s shitting?

    Things like this are why I prefer my Atheism to be disorganized. As Madalyn Murray O’Hair and Kin found out too late (along with countless religionists,) one bad HR move can ruin your whole spatio-temporal coordinates.

    1. I kind of agree with this. Some hacky organization bestowed an award on you… then revoked it.

      1. did they revoke it to prove wokeness or to just get attention since most everyone forgot about their little club

      2. I’m with you here too. Humanism is such a nebulous term, it could be either Religious or Secular, and Humanists differ vastly on what constitutes human betterment and flourishing. I’ll agree with particular positions espoused by individual humanists a la carte, but don’t don’t identify with all of them by any means.

        The Secular Humanist movement was at it’s best in the Seventies and Eighties, with The Humanist Manifesto II and the premieres of the magazine Free Inquiry and publisher Prometheus Books. There was greater representation of libertarian viewpoints in the Secular Humanist Movement from such great writers and thinkers as Anthony Flew, Paul Kurtz, James “The Amazing” Randi, Michael Shermer, Thomas Szasz, and from Anti-Communist dissenters Andrei Sakharov and Milovan Djilas.

        Prometheus Books also featured books that gave a fair voice to libertarian views on affirmative action, censorship, drugs, gun control, pornography, psychiatry, Religion-State Separation, sex, torture, and many other topics. Some of their books were also sold by Laissez-Faire Books.

        Where Political Correctness and Wokeness snuck in, I haven’t studied yet, but I think it may have started with The Humanist Manifesto III in 2003. The language isn’t as fourthright and direct as the previous Manifesto.

    2. Things like this are why I prefer my Atheism to be disorganized.

      Interesting (repeated) use of *A*theism with the implication that it is organized. Almost like you actually think Atheism is an organized belief system, but for some reason (that I’m sure is super-rational) insist that it is not a religion.

      1. Any time a traditionally lowercased word starts to get uppercased (Atheism, Science) then it tends to not be for the better. If they start adding an exclamation point (Science!) then you need to learn to actively avoid it. Unless it’s in a Thomas Dolby song. Then it’s okay.

        1. I capitalize Atheism the same way and for the same reason I capitalize any philosophical or religious viewpoint or subject matter. They are all proper nouns.

          And I would only add an exclamation point to anything to make it an interjection, which expresses excitement or emotion, as per the famous Schoolhouse Rock video.

      2. Atheim, as an idea, is not an organization. Rather, some Atheists are members of Atheist organizations and some aren’t. And being organized does not equal religious or vice-versa, even for Theists or believers in religion.

        1. Atheim, as an idea, is not an organization. Rather, some Atheists are members of Atheist organizations and some aren’t.

          No shit Sherlock. Your misunderstanding (apparently to the point of obliviousness) of the difference between common and proper nouns doesn’t bode well for your deeper understanding of philosophy.

          1. Well, you and BestUsedCarSales were interested in my use of capital letters, so I explained. And this is also practiced in both philosophical and theological texts, so I seem confirmed in my practice.

            1. And this is also practiced in both philosophical and theological texts, so I seem confirmed in my practice.

              Do you believe you’re doing it correctly?

  13. Harris, Gore, Hitch, Bruno, and Dawkins
    The complaints leveled against Richard Dawkins have a distinct ring to them. People are complaining about scientific theories impinging on their received truths. Many others have come up against this mindset of course.

    Sam Harris thinks we should give the Bell Curve data a look before we reject it out of hand, thus raising the hackles of people that can not accept the possibilities of differences among people. Instead of questioning Harris about the data and his interpretation of it, they declare him a racist and will hear no more about it. Cancel him.
    Al Gore figured we should tackle a climate trend before it kills us but so far, about 1/2 of the US still thinks he should not speak out where the economy is involved. Hitchens had the gall to point out that Mother Teresa may have caused more harm than good – “But Hitch – she is a saint.” and Giordano Bruno was set on fire because his theory of an infinite universe collided with church dogma.

    Now Dawkins has dared to point out that biologically speaking, there are two and only two sexes. This, of course, brings out howls from Social Justice Worriers that cannot contemplate a scientific theory that does not fit with their received notions of right and wrong. Instead of questioning Dawkins, they declare him ‘just another cisgendered old white guy who should keep his mouth shut and then proceed to cancel him.

    I had the rather naive idea that if a person, or a group of people, were open enough in their religious thinking to accept atheism, they could also be open to challenging ideas from other disciplines like biology. I was wrong.
    Several times I asked for clarification of why Dawkins’s post was so off base but most of the responses were ad hominem and something like “when a transgender person says its wrong, who are you, a cis gen old white guy, to question it.” The other typical response was, “go away and read some books.” Shallow thoughts from shallow people.

    It reminded me of my time in the Mormon church whenever I had a question; the answer usually came back “When the Prophet Speaks, the thinking has been done.”

    1. Now Dawkins has dared to point out that biologically speaking, there are two and only two sexes.

      From Medical News Today in a scientific article about Pfizer covid vaccine side effects:

      Sex and gender exist on spectrums. This article sill use the terms “male” and “female” to refer to a person’s sex assigned at birth.

      What’s amazing to me is how quickly even scientific journals have gotten on board with this idea that exists as nothing more than messaging. And, I was told that gender was separated from sex, and it was gender that was on the spectrum– that rational people never said anything about the existence of ovaries being a social construct.

      So much for that hogwash.

      1. I think part of what people are getting at there is that intersex persons do exist.

        1. I would recommend you read Douglas Murray’s book, The Madness of Crowds where he addresses this very subject.

          I’ll paraphrase… at its core, there is an actual community of people that exist (vanishingly small though they are): intersex. The problem, however, is that the trans activists leapfrogged over this subject with a whole set of untruths, attempting to get society to bend to a lie. Had they stuck with intersex, the conversation we’d be having today would be much different.

          1. What was the whole set of untruths?

          2. There’s also a significant biological argument to be made that they aren’t intersex. That the classification itself is an ad hoc and inaccurate social construct. As best as can be known, no human has ever been born with both functioning ovaries and testes and the assertion that having non-functioning or surgically removed gonads makes you intersex is like saying a motorcycle is between a car and a truck. Even by the premises of untruth a person missing an arm, leg, or even just a finger is intersex.

            They’re nihilist morons perpetually entertained by Bullwinkle’s ability to pull a lion out of a hat.

        2. The it has nothing to do with trans people because intersex is a completely different condition.

      2. The premise is wrong. Sex is not assigned at birth. Sex is observed and noted at birth. It is an objective reality. Eve intersex is an objective reality, as it is the result of chromosomal anomalies.

    2. “Social Justice Worriers”

      Thank you.

    3. When the Prophet Speaks, the thinking has been done

      Hey, at least we don’t cut people’s heads off for drawing his picture.

      1. Hey, at least we don’t cut people’s heads off for drawing his picture.

        I’m sure the millions who’ve died because of atheistic ideals are relieved that they got to keep their heads.

        1. When have atheists ever conducted theological purges?

          1. When have atheists ever conducted theological purges?

            You mean, other than any of the ones they are conducting now?

        2. If you are referring to the millions of deaths from Communism, Communism existed centuries before Marx and can be Theistic as well as Atheistic, religious as well as Secular.

  14. “Several times I asked for clarification of why Dawkins’s post was so off base but most of the responses were ad hominem and something like “when a transgender person says its wrong, who are you, a cis gen old white guy, to question it.” The other typical response was, “go away and read some books.” Shallow thoughts from shallow people.”

    The AHA seems fairly clear about why they felt the post was off base.

    “His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient.”

    https://americanhumanist.org/news/american-humanist-association-board-statement-withdrawing-honor-from-richard-dawkins/

    1. That’s the problem exactly.
      “… statement implies …” is not clear at all. Not to me at least.
      Just how does it ‘imply’ that? Is what is implied that is incorrect? If it’s wrong what is correct?

      1. So do you think it doesn’t imply that or that what it implies is correct and therefore ok?

        1. It’s a question.

          1. Sort of, but sort of not as well.

            1. “It’s is acceptable, even obligatory, for me to not acknowledge Rachel Dolezal’s identity, but it is not acceptable for me to not acknowledge someone’s gender identity. What is the difference between these two things that they are opposite in this way?”

              How is this not a question?

              1. That’s not what he wrote, which was “In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.”

                Note there is no ? there.

                1. It appears his theorem was proven “true”.

                2. Note there is no ? there.

                  The ? is supplied by the word “discuss.” This is a pretty common college-professor idiom. It replaces “why is it the case that” at the beginning.

                  If he’s just making a statement to attack trans people, why the “discuss?” Why is he mentioning Rachel Dolezal in the same breath?

                  1. That’s why I said it’s sort of a question.

                    “why is he mentioning Rachel Dolezal in the same breath?”
                    This is almost certainly what offends trans people about the tweet.

                    1. This is almost certainly what offends trans people about the tweet.

                      You’re getting closer, inch by inch.

                      He’s explicitly drawing a comparison between Dolezal’s identity and trans identity, asking why we don’t treat Dolezal’s identity the same way we do trans identities.

                      You seem to already know the answer to this question, so maybe you can share?

                    2. “You seem to already know the answer to this question, so maybe you can share?”

                      Be careful, Queenie’s head might explode.

    2. “His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient.”

      But it doesn’t. It points out that we are asked to believe that race-based identity is biologically essential but that gender-based identity is not and asks for discussion of that seeming contradiction.

      1. Another reading of it is that it denies trans persons their gender identity.

        1. Only if you read into it things it doesn’t say.

          1. Really? It says “deny that they literally are what they identify as.” Trans women think of themselves as women, trans men think of themselves as men. And he says they literally are not what they think of themselves as. I can see where the offense is taken.

            1. It says “deny that they literally are what they identify as.”

              No, it doesn’t. What it says is

              You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as.”

              And here you are vilifying him not even for actually saying this but for mentioning that this is a thing that can be said that you will be vilified for.

              So, aren’t you kind of proving him correct here?

              1. Try this on: The American Humanist Society says it believes in asking and debating tough questions, but they will vilify you if you argue that black persons are literally more criminal than other races. Discuss.

                Could you see how a black person might be offended by that?

                1. I think a more fair way to draw your comparison would be more along the lines of

                  “When white police officers shoot black suspects, we are not to question the racist motivations of the shooter, but you will be vilified if you point out the higher rates of violence against black people perpetrated by other blacks. Discuss.”

                  I can name a number of black people who would actually be quite interested in discussing that particular question. But some black people might be offended by it.

                  Which black people speak for all black people, and why should they have veto power over other people’s discussions? And as a follow-on point, if some black people want to have that discussion, but other black people are offended by it, what happens?

                  1. I think to be an analogous it has to be about something really important to the group and it has to contain something that has long been seen as kind of a slur or insult towards the group (‘deny that they are literally not what they identify as’).

                    1. But you keep erasing the comparison that is being made and pretending that Dawkins is merely asking why we have to pretend trans people are what they claim to be.

                      What he’s actually asking is why trans people’s identities are unquestionable, but Dolezal’s identity is not to be accepted. It’s a two-part question, but you keep pretending it’s a one-part question.

              2. Of here’s another one: “Black people call each other n***ers but if a white person calls someone a n***er they will be vilified. Discuss.”

                I could see a black person being upset over this invitation to discuss that.

                1. Of here’s another one: “Black people call each other n***ers but if a white person calls someone a n***er they will be vilified. Discuss.”

                  Kmele Foster brings this one up all the time. He finds it hilarious how white people squirm over this. Does that make him a racist?

                  1. Of course not. But I imagine you recognize how some black persons might find the comment offensive.

                    1. Which doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be discussed. I thought you leftists desired “difficult conversations”.

                    2. Wait, but no one has answered the question: why is it OK to change your gender but not your race? Can someone answer this question? Please? I really want to know.

                  2. Which doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be discussed. I thought you leftists desired “difficult conversations”.

                    ^ThisThisThis

                  3. Kmele Foster, Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle…

                    One might surmise that the offended black person Amalthea is hypothesizing doesn’t exist or, more appropriately, only exists because Amalthea believes they exist.

                    It would (not) be interesting to hear Amalthea (not) disuss whether Foster/Rock/Chappelle (and their audience) can(‘t) have the discussion because their Amalthea’s hypothetical black person might get offended.

                2. “Words have meaning. Discuss.”

                  I can see a trans person being upset over this invitation to discuss that. That does not mean it is justified.

                3. Black here, false premise. We call each other niggas. Thanks.

        2. Another reading of it is that it denies trans persons their gender identity.

          No more than it guarantees a person their race identity. Dawkins is simply asking the question on what Square correctly identifies as a “seeming contradiction.” Why support one and not the other?

          1. I think the answer would be that affirming the human rights and personal autonomy of all people is fostered by the two stances because black persons and trans persons are in vulnerable positions.

            1. I don’t think your position fosters the rights and autonomy of Rachel Dolezal. Who are you to claim to know how she feels about her own race? It’s no better than questioning someone’s gender, or at least, that’s the point I take away from Dawkins.

              Regardless of your personal views on this issue, the point is there can be rational discourse which is what Dawkins was asking for. You and I can and should have this conversation without fear of being canceled, because rational discourse is what helps people foster understanding.

              The AHA should have simply replied with their opinion on Dawkins’s question, especially if their answer was compelling.

              1. I myself don’t know what the right opinion is about Dolezal but I know many black persons were upset by the whole thing. You could ask them why I guess. Likewise trans people are upset when someone talks about them ‘literally’ not being what they identify as.

                1. And again, that seems to be the point Dawkins is trying to make.

                  1. In making it though he says that trans persons are literally not the gender they identify as, hence the offense.

                    1. In making it though he says that trans persons are literally not the gender they identify as

                      No, he doesn’t. He points out that saying or even implying that possibility in any context is unacceptable, which you are demonstrating quite nicely.

                    2. He doesn’t technically say that, although I detect some snark. What he does point out, correctly, is that even questioning it will get you vilified.

                    3. They’re not.

                      “That’s a hard mother fucking truth, butch.”

                2. I myself don’t know what the right opinion is about Dolezal

                  Perhaps it merits rational discussion.

                  1. I think it better merits some rational listening.

                    1. Is that you saying “shut up I don’t want to hear about this from you anymore?”

                    2. No, it’s me saying that it’s important to me to listen to what black people think about passing for black.

                    3. No, it’s me saying that it’s important to me to listen to what black people think about passing for black.

                      So how can we do that if we can’t even ask this question?

                    4. QA, someone wants to be accepted as black, you’re implying it’s up to blacks whether or not to accept them.

                      If someone wants to be accepted as Z, is up to existing members of group Z do decide whether to exclude or allow it?

                      Correct me if I’m wrong, but I would guess you’re not willing to answer that without comparing Z and the “applicant” on some kind of intersectionality vs privilege scale.

                    5. “No, it’s me saying that it’s important to me to listen to what male people think about passing for male.”

                    6. JFC, you are allowed to think about things through other peoples POVs. You are also allowed to have an opinion on things you havent personally experienced.

                3. Likewise trans people are upset when someone talks about them ‘literally’ not being what they identify as.

                  No, that is demonstrably not correct.

                4. What if it ‘upsets’ me to not be able to challenge the self-identity of trans people? What if I am offended by not having the freedom to ask the questions I want to ask. What if I am offended by someone who wants to suppress my right to free speech?

                  Whose offence is more important? How do you know that I am not deeply offended by your attempts to silence me (or Dawkins) in regard to questions about gender?

                  Where does any reasonable discourse proceed from such a stalemate?

    3. If you cannot explain how a someone from a white ethnicity identifying a a black person is to be rejected but a man identifying as a woman is not to be questioned without contradiction, then that suggests one of them is wrong. To punish someone for even bringing up the question suggests that the answer is embarrassing.

      1. Black persons are offended/upset by what Dolezal did and trans people are offended/upset about their identity being denied, so the argument is something like that human rights and autonomy is being denied these two groups by both of those things and Humanists are committed to avoiding that.

        1. Some black people were offended by Dolezal. Some didn’t care at all. Some trans people are upset about other people not recognizing their identities, some get over it.

          How do you decide which people’s perspectives are the authentic feelings of those groups and which ones are to be dismissed?

          1. I don’t have to decide what the entire group feels to know that I might be offending persons in it.

            Some old ladies don’t mind it when you drop F bombs when talking to them but I don’t do it because I know many will.

            1. I don’t have to decide what the entire group feels to know that I might be offending persons in it.

              Maybe these groups don’t even actually exist in the way that you think they do?

              Are you really saying that we should avoid discussion of any “ethical” propositions that are clearly self-contradictory if there’s a chance that someone somewhere might be offended by the discussion?

              1. I don’t think they are clearly self-contradictory and I do think some discussions are so fraught with offensiveness that they should be avoided. I mean, it’s wild you act like you don’t get this concept. Would you like to have a nice rational discussion about The Jewish Problem? I don’t. Even if I were confident that the view that there is no Jewish Problem and what should be done is to treat them well I think the very discussion of the topic is inherently offensive to Jews.

                1. I don’t think they are clearly self-contradictory

                  Let’s get this straight.

                  Race is not genetically a thing. It’s pretty much 100% a social construct. This is not controversial.

                  Biological gender is 100% a genetic thing. Yes there are intersex people, but this is an abnormality. All normal human DNA sequences are either XY or XX. This needn’t mean one single thing as far as behaviors or social roles, but the biochemical fact is a biochemical fact.

                  You’re looking at the proposition that someone can not socially become a member of another race, but someone can socially become another gender, and despite the former having no real biological foundation and the other having a very clear biological foundation, saying that you can’t see any contradiction there? None at all?

                  Would you like to have a nice rational discussion about The Jewish Problem?

                  That you keep pretending that we’re anywhere in this neighborhood is offensive – you should stop doing it.

                  But when people like Misek come around here talking about the Jewish Problem, is your contention that we should just ignore him and not point out that he’s a hateful bigot who propagates lies about history?

                  1. QA is incapable of rational discussion. As they constantly reaffirm in the comments.

                2. How do you conclude that there is no contradiction when you do not even want the question examined?

                  And, sorry, no. This does not even approach “The Jewish Question”.

                3. You seem to think it’s sufficient to show that conversations can be offensive, therefore, shutting down the discussion over self-selected and dynamic sex/gender/race is totally cool for a society that promotes rational thought.

                  That’s very insufficient for me.

                  Controversial issues warrant debate. “Black people are human” isn’t controversial. No one asks that question, and if they did, that may suggest the asker thinks “no, they are not.” But even then, that’s an assumption.

                  “I’m a woman even though I have a penis and an Adam’s apple” is actually controversial. So is “I’m black if I say I am.” Shutting down that conversation smells like avoiding rational thought, not avoiding offense.

        2. If Black people are offended by Dolezal claiming blackness, and women are offended by men claiming womanhood, then… I think you know where I’m going with this.

          1. ^ This.

          2. No, QA does not know where you are going with that. He’s either incapable, or in denial.

        3. That commitment is supporting mutually contradictory opinions. To put the question out of bounds beclowns their commitment to rational thought, and therefore makes their pronouncements elsewhere to be suspect and damages their reputation.

          If someone’s identity can be harmed by a true observation, than it probably is fraudulent.

          1. True statements can be plenty hurtful. Jim Carrey made an entire movie about this point!

            Of course ‘asking questions’ can be offensive and hurtful at times and an organization that wants to affirm people and their autonomy might try to avoid that.

            1. Jim Carrey made an entire movie about this point!

              I’m sure, whichever movie you are referring to, it was the ‘objective truths as harm’ version of Schindler’s List.

            2. But they do not want to affirm the autonomy of someone who wishes to identify as a different race, nor do they mind asking questions that offend other groups.

              In fact, their entire stance here is a tacit admission that their position is irrational and untrue

              1. Correct.
                But QA, as a good little member of the Global Socialist Worriers Party, is duty bound to gaslight that direct contradictions aren’t contradictions at all.

                1. Modern leftism requires, and produces, literal psychosis.

                  1. I think she is identifying as having psychosis.

            3. You might as well just say, “the humanists were offended he pointed out their cognitive dissonance.”

              I can see how that would be offensive, but the most constructive reply probably involves looking in a mirror, not cancelling the thinker.

        4. Maybe you shouldn’t worry so much about people who are denying your reality, queenie. Did you really think that cutting off your dick and putting on a dress would be met with universal applause?

    4. The AHA seems fairly clear about why they felt the post was off base.

      “Clear” is not the only virtue. Consider the following statement:

      “His latest statement implies that the identities of transracial individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Female identity as one that can be assumed when convenient.”

      Equally clear — and far more in-line with scientific principles — but heresy, according to the mullahs of the AHA.

    5. “His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient.”

      It can’t be both of these things at the same time. If it is one, then it is not the other.

  15. I don’t think a private organization revoking its award = ‘cancelling’ anyone, if that’s so the concept has become vacuously broad. Canceling should be about coordinated efforts to de-platform and/or economically harm someone for their speech.

    1. I agree with this. But let’s see where this goes. I’m guessing the mob isn’t going to shy away from this.

      1. If they were going to come for him they would have already, Dawkins has written and said some very ‘unwoke’ things on a variety of topics for a while.

      2. I agree with this, too – this one society removing Dawkins from its ranks its not really what we normally mean when we speak of “cancel culture.” Call me when he loses a book deal, or when his job is danger.

        It’s still stupid, though, and makes the AHS look pretty ridiculous.

        1. It’s a small instance of it, but the organization literally canceled his award.

          1. Yes – what the organization did is pretty much memory-holing, which they should be deeply ashamed of and embarrassed about, but they probably aren’t.

            1. Which to your point, I suppose does make it part of “cancel culture,” but I don’t think it’s quite accurate to say “Dawkins has been cancelled” without adding the clarification “by an obscure society no one really cares about.”

            2. It is one thing to have a school forfeit a national championship after they found out the school was cheating. But they don’t revoke the title from 1990 when the school was caught paying players in 2020.

    2. I agree, that until Dawkins loses a job, he hasn’t really been canceled.

      1. I don’t think one has to go to the point of someone being fired, calling for that kind of thing is cancel culture imho.

    3. I don’t think a private organization revoking its award = ‘cancelling’ anyone

      Technically correct, but the AHA is clearly doing all they can to de-platform and economically harm. As it happens, all they can is not very much, but their intent is clear.

  16. “The AHA’s own values require tolerance of difficult conversations around public policy subjects, rather than a knee-jerk drive to punish dissenters from orthodoxies.”

    The woke definition of “difficult conversations” means difficult for *you,* not *them.*

    1. Difficult conversations for the woke are where they get to harangue the infidels and heretics without any lip. Forbidden conversations are where their premises are challenged.

  17. What I don’t understand is how there can be so many trannies ruining absolutely everything on the face of the earth. Aren’t they supposed to be like 0.001% percent of the population? Or is this a case of woke overlords being offended on their behalf?

    1. Or is this a case of woke overlords being offended on their behalf?

      I think this is pretty clear at this point.

      1. It is definitely that!

    2. Is it 0.001% or 0.002% and half of them are socially constructed as dead?

    3. The problem is that its being taken up by people who actually aren’t transgender.

      Not happy with your life? Feel like an outsider? Then your problem is you have the wrong gender! And if you change it, everything will be better

      But it’s not. Especially once you get onto drugs and get surgery. Especially young kids.

      1. For a lot of young girls, it’s simply a way of avoiding taking on “girl roles” that they feel they’re supposed to take on after puberty. We used to have tomboys, now we have trans girls.

    4. Actually trannies are like actual witches at a witch-trial: probably absent but in any case irrelevant. The wellbeing of any specific individual has nothing to do with the AHA’s actions; the point here is orthodoxy.

      1. Like the play Harvey?

    5. It’s the case of the Republican party running out of vulnerable minorities to use as chum.

      Nobody has to give a shit about what trans people are going through. You won’t encounter many of them in your life, and nothing they want has any remote effect on you, except to the extent that you would prefer a society that treats everyone with equal dignity.

      Progressives are basically sitting around learning from trans people right now. But its the Trumpists who are fucking obsessed with them.

      Of course it’s all fun and games until Arkansas and a number of other states start passing laws meant to target and punish trans people.

      When will you notice the fascism, when you’re helping to lay bricks for the ovens?

      1. Maybe you replied to the wrong comment. I’m not sure. I have never advocated abusing people who practice genital mutilation on themselves, though I disagree with them strongly on what it means to be treated “with respect”. I wrote my comment above because there very much seems to be two kinds of transgenders. All whom I know personally are quiet and inoffensive people with mental issues that for one reason or another they decided to try and resolve with hormones and surgery. It’s sad, but they don’t deserve to suffer (but humoring their delusions is also not a form of respect). In general though, they just want to be left alone to go about their business in the least obstructive way possible and I can respect that. The other kind seems to the “screeching twitter tranny” who I have never met an example of in person but who seem omnipresent on the internet to attack anyone who doesn’t roll over 110% to their demands immediately and without question. I question why the screeching twitter version seems so common when transgendered people are so vanishingly rare in general and the screeching twitter subspecies seems like a rare variant.

        1. My point is that if you suddenly have found yourself preoccupied by trans people, consider the source. A few executive actions and poking at the edges of civil rights have happened on their behalf, but by far the biggest hullabaloo is happening in right-wing media, who are doing the only thing fascists know how to do: demonize and scapegoat minorities for political gain.

          I don’t get trans people any more than you do, but I do presume they are humans entitled to the same rights you feel you are entitled to. Like, exactly the same rights. It’s a radical hippie principal I have.

          1. I do presume they are humans entitled to the same rights you feel you are entitled to. Like, exactly the same rights.

            Why are you pretending anyone is arguing against this?

            1. Because the entirety of transgender activism relies on that fantasy.

      2. “ Progressives are basically sitting around learning from trans people right now.”

        Bullshit. Progressives are turning trans people into political footballs.

        1. Oh, do you read much progressive writing?

          1. Yes.

            There’s little political value in the tranny vote itself.

            However, there’s a lot of political value in painting half the country as sexist bigots to the other half.

            Hence, the current moment.

            1. ^ So, so much this.

  18. I identify as a chicken nugget and my preferred pronoun is “lollipop.”

    1. If we can find chicken nuggets who are offended by this, then we can revoke your award.

      1. McDonald’s has called the stuff they put in their nuggets “chicken” for decades. Chickens should be offended.

        1. “Parts is parts.”

        2. Is this like that old Forward:Fwd:Fd:fd e-mail that the restaurant calls itself KFC because it’s not real chicken but Kentucky Fnord Creature?

    2. If you were also into erotic asphyxiation, you’d be a lolligagger.

      1. DDG: bull durham lolligaggers

  19. Given that Dawkins has been taking fire for decades, I seriously doubt he cares all that much. I’d rather listen to his argument than some woke millennial or Zer who were brainwashed from an early age.

  20. To err is human, is it not?

  21. Sanger’s legacy s not complicated – she was a eugenicist that wanted to exterminate minorities.

    1. Yeah I scratched my head at that one too.

    2. But thanks to her white women can also vacuum out their mistakes at taxpayers expense. The women is a hero too obviously.

  22. being canceled by people not qualified to tie your shoes must be delicious.

    1. Kind of like when the film actors guild kicked Trump out?

      1. F.A.G.
        -Matt Damon

  23. The entire system is rotten and corrupted to its core. Whatever ‘revered’ institutions left is infested with useless dogmatic ideologue cockroaches.

    It’s all out of order. EVERYTHING. The courts, education, the political system, science, media, entertainment….ROTTEN. “Pourri” as they say in French.

    Research Gate banned Dr. Denis Rancourt for the crime of following science on masks. They removed RCT and meta-analysis reviews showing masks are useless. But you can’t do that today lest the sons of bitches get offended.

    The ‘science’ journals is another example of how everything is out of order. Apparently they get (or received) funding from Bill Gates – that poisonous criminal.

    They should rename their site. Research Gates.

    This ‘pandemic’ should make this all so starkly clear.

    1. You’re still stuck on this mask thing?

      All this hysteria over a simple fashion accessory and likely droplet blocker. It could all go away if you just stopped reading and watching rightwing trash.

  24. Humanist values? What bunk. Humanism is religion – specifically Christianity – stripped of all meaning – and repressed in much the same way that Victorians repressed sex by covering up the legs of chairs.

    1. Astoundingly solid assessment.

    2. Humanists can be either Religious Humanists or Secular Humanists and their values vary from person to person, with some vague common denominators. My agreement with them is ad hoc.

      And where exactly did Victorians get their repressiveness on sex?

      1. My agreement with them is ad hoc.

        belief noun
        be·​lief | \ bə-ˈlēf \
        Definition of belief
        1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
        her belief in God
        a belief in democracy
        I bought the table in the belief that it was an antique.
        contrary to popular belief

        2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed
        an individual’s religious or political beliefs
        especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
        the beliefs of the Catholic Church

        3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
        belief in the validity of scientific statements

        1. A very thorough definitin of belief. And Atheism is a lack of all of that vis a vis the existence of God or Gods.

  25. Another “death by tweet.” Why does any thinking person use that platform?

  26. Many decades ago I saw a screening of a Fellini movie at the local university. Satyricon I think but the 70s are kind of a blur and Fellini didn’t help matters much with his “films”. In any case the movie features a very long segment wherein a hermaphrodite is being transported through an ancient desert by a group of worshipful attendants. Everyone they encounter on route is also mesmerized by this spiritual being although the character doesn’t seem particularly bright. The cultural mystical reverence for the transgendered we witness today always reminds me of that scene which for some reason still clutters a tiny portion of my brain along with early episodes of The Monkees. The transgendered are not sad confused individual and they are not worthy only of our tolerance and respect. They are in fact superior to all other human being and we live only to grovel for their blessings. Non believers must be excommunicated not only from the Church of the Woke but from civilization itself.

    1. Yes I remember that scene!

    2. Me, I prefer Ken Russell’s version of Gardening Club. 🙂

  27. Richard Dawkins is one of the great science writers of all time, and even though his atheism advocacy has been shrill and annoying, I would bet you anything that more people are now thoughtful, decent atheists because of Richard Dawkins than most any other thinker. That’s a lot of good to contribute to the world.

    But he personally might be better off having stayed in the science lane, because what happened is he became elderly and insisted on having opinions on vogue controversies. Silly, stupid man.

    I’m as plugged in to woke orthodoxy as any American can reasonably be expected, and still I find myself tripping over myself trying to keep up with what’s acceptable and what’s outdated. Yea, it kind of feels like the wokeists are playing games with us.

    What’s really happening is that the wokeists are obsessively fixated on neutralizing language for the sake of tolerance, and so those at the cutting edge adopt the newly accepted terms and concepts, quickly find the last thing grating and offensive, and can’t help but be rude to those of us who haven’t caught up yet.

    Bit Richard Dawkins needs a publicist to break his fingers any time he has the urge to talk about trans people. He’s just never going to get it. He’s too old. The trans haven’t figured out what they’re about yet. If you don’t want to get involved, by all means, please don’t.

    1. “What’s really happening is that the wokeists are obsessively fixated on neutralizing language for the sake of tolerance, and so those at the cutting edge adopt the newly accepted terms and concepts, quickly find the last thing grating and offensive, and can’t help but be rude to those of us who haven’t caught up yet.”

      That is a foolish game to play along with.

      1. That is a foolish game to play along with.

        Dr. Suess wrote a story about it, The Sneetches. Being woke means you are a better person. Wokeness accelerates as they vie to prove they are the best.

        The moral of The Sneetches is lost on the woke. They already cancelled Dr. Suess.

        1. Speaking of being played, can you believe how FOX News is dragging people around by the nostrils and have them actually in hysterics over children’s books? It seems like a big fucking joke to me, I don’t know about you.

      2. I love how, I’m the name of tolerance, they change language and ridicule others who won’t follow them along.

        It’s almost like “tolerance” is just bullshit.

    2. Really? I think it’s a clear cut case of the AHA being ridiculous. Putting all the blame on Dawkins ignores the real culprit here: the AHA went full retard with wokeness.

      They went full retard, and they’re throwing paste instead of eating it.

      1. His hot take in that tweet is woefully misguided. Unfortunately, Dawkins found himself in unsavory company as part of the atheist movement, as some of its major stars turned out to be terrible people, like Sam Harris. I’m personally rather annoyed that a good movement with good aims has found itself hitched to right-wing backlash culture, but that’s always a danger when your movement is mostly white gamer boys.

        1. His tweet was woefully misguided only in that sense that it was completely predictable that woke retards would retard out over it, regardless of how sensible a tweet it really is.

          1. If you and Richard Dawkins don’t understand how this works, all you have to do is ask someone who does.

            1. I get how it works.

              Progressives freak out and throw poo when you point out their cognitive dissonance.

              I know he should have seen that coming, but, then again, look at the monkeys throwing poo.

        2. One, there is no one Atheist common denominator besides the lack of belief in God or Gods, not on politics, economics, not even on science or religion. Hence, while Atheist individuals may or may not belong to organizations, or may embrace different vewpoints on all subjects, Atheism does not constitute a monolithic movement.

          Two, because all humans are born without any ideas of anything, including God or Gods, and because Atheism is not a belief but a lack of belief, all humans are born, by default, as Atheists. Hence, Atheists are not “mostly white gamer boys” as you like to put it. Atheists can be of any immutable trait, including “race,” nationality, age, sex, sexual orientation, or (Wow! Jinx!) gender identity.

          As for The Atheist Four Horsemen Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett, my agreement with them is ad hoc.

          They have all did a great job at presenting and popularizing arguments against God and supernaturalism, however, I part ways with Dawkins on supporting the EU, with the late Hitchens on his support of Iraq War II, and with Harris and Dennett on Determinism.

          And you know what? We all can disagree without “cancelling” each other and without the ad hominem you are so notorious for purveying.

    3. those at the cutting edge

      Is that a microaggression against transgenders?

      1. It’s just empathy, Working to understand their slice of life, cutting out our bigotries, putting aside our sticks and stones, or at the very least, finding yourself in a hole and deciding to stop digging before it gets too deep.

    4. I would bet you anything that more people are now thoughtful, decent atheists because of Richard Dawkins

      Doubtful. But he’s certainly inspiring to shrill, annoying atheists. As an agnostic, I was put-off by The God Delusion and its persistent combination of smugness and deliberate ignorance, which didn’t wind up making a very good case for atheism, in my opinion.

      the wokeists are obsessively fixated on neutralizing language for the sake of tolerance, and so those at the cutting edge adopt the newly accepted terms and concepts, quickly find the last thing grating and offensive, and can’t help but be rude to those of us who haven’t caught up yet.

      So . . . when does the tolerance start happening?

      He’s just never going to get it. He’s too old. The trans haven’t figured out what they’re about yet.

      Are they too old, too?

  28. “Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values,” said the AHA. “His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient.”

    What in the actual fuck? He can’t possibly be saying both at the same time. Maybe, just maybe, the AHA is just full of easily offended ball-sacks.

  29. U better You Sort of like this comment section.”
    https://wapexclusive.com ,More like the TDS-addled lefty shits whining about the comment section.

  30. Since I started with my online business, I earn $25 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you won’t forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.

    Learn more about it here..

    ……………………… http://www.Cash44.club

  31. The AHA statement is unsigned, because if it were signed readers would be saying, “Who the f*** is that?”. Just so.

  32. Anybody who is famous will be cancelled, on the grounds that famous people have no more right to be famous than non-famous people. This is known as “equity”.

  33. “His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient.”

    I think they mean his statement implies that gender and race cannot be assumed when convenient. Obviously he wouldn’t embrace the contradiction of tolerance for one but not the other. The contradiction is his entire point.

    Which makes perfect sense.

  34. A principle is a rule you follow even when you don’t like the outcome.

    If you believe in the principle of “personal autonomy”, then that means you believe in it for everyone.

    And that means “personal autonomy” can NOT be defined in such a way that giving it to person X means denying it to person Y

    If you can chose to believe what you want, then so can I. if you can chose to say what you want, then so can I.

    If what I chose to say hurts your feelings, that just too damn bad.

    Because your restricting what I can say would hurt me at least as much as my comments would hurt you.

    But if you are free to pick and chose whose “hurt” matters, and whose doesn’t, then it’s not about principle, it’s just a bunch of thugs (that’s you) deciding who you’re going to try to bully.

    The AHA is a fraud

  35. A guy in Australia did the whole gender change thing, with the hope that he would end up a happier, more well adjusted person. It did not work, and he came to the the conclusion that the whole gender change routine had been a mistake, that he would have been better off just staying as he had been born. He started support group, and discovered literally hudreds of others who’d had the same experience. He has been vilified by the TG wokers.

    Sometimes people have mental and emotional problems, and they are led to believe that gender transformation will help them. The initial change carries with it a certain novelty that gives one a temporary false high. But then after awhile, that wears off, and the person feels that it was a mistake.

  36. If there is a reason to cancel him, it is his talk with Amber Heard.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.