Richard Dawkins, what on earth happened to you?

[cbayer]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/30/richard-dawkins-what-on-earth-happened-to-you
Dawkins in 2014 is a man so convinced that he possesses God-like powers of omniscience that he can’t understand why everyone is angry at him for pointing out the obvious

Eleanor Robertson

theguardian.com, Wednesday 30 July 2014 01.56 BST


Richard Dawkins at home. Photograph: Rex Features

Another day, another tweet from Richard Dawkins proving that if non-conscious material is given enough time, it is capable of evolving into an obstreperous crackpot who should have retired from public speech when he had the chance to bow out before embarrassing himself.

“Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse,” huffs Dawkins. Seeming to have anticipated, although not understood, the feminist reaction this kind of sentiment generally evokes, he finishes the tweet: “If you think that’s an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.”

You can almost imagine him tweeting this, his fingers jabbing away at the keyboard as his glasses slide down a face contorted with disappointment at how irrational everyone is being. This is Dawkins in 2014: a figure of mockery, a man so convinced that he possesses God-like powers of omniscience that he can’t understand why everyone’s getting angry at him for pointing out the obvious. Why won’t we all just learn how to think, damn it! Then we could all live together in a peaceful society where nobody wears “bin liners”, and women shut up about sexual harassment.

Remember when Dawkins was widely respected? When his biggest detractor was late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould? I don’t. Having grown up after Dawkins made the transition from lauded science communicator to old man who shouts at clouds, it’s hard for me to understand why anyone continues to listen to him about anything.

more at link

[intaglio]

1. And this after he tried to mend fences

Joint statement by Ophelia Benson and Richard Dawkins

P Z Myers reaction

Why why why?
I really like Richard Dawkins, personally and professionally, although a lot of readers here get indignant at that. But that’s why it hurts to see him say obnoxious things on Twitter, like rating different kinds of rape and pedophilia. He doesn’t understand why that’s objectionable; has he ever heard of Todd Akin (maybe not — he is an obscure American politician who made up a lot of nonsense about “legitimate rape” and got flambéed for it)? This is like walking straight into a firepit that has consumed many far-right wingnuts (which Dawkins is not) before him, and thinking he’ll come out unsinged.

Amanda Marcotte at The Raw Story

Richard Dawkins explains a principle he himself refuses to adhere to
/snip
It’s a bit of passive-aggressive weirdness, for sure. I don’t think anyone objects to the initial statement, of course. He’s right that it is logical! Pearl Jam is bad. Dave Matthews Band is worse. That is not an endorsement of Pearl Jam. Stubbing your toe is bad. Getting it cut off is worse. That is not an endorsement of stubbing your toe. Wine coolers are bad. Mad Dog is worse. That is not an endorsement of wine coolers.

See, I could do this all day, using only examples that are much clearer than invoking touchy issues that are touchy precisely because a lot of people actually deny—and spend a whole of time and effort denying—that the bad things are actually all that bad. Indeed, it’s particularly weird to pull on date rape in an environment where a prominent Washington Post columnist is on the record pulling exactly this trick of implying that date rape shouldn’t “count” as rape because it’s supposedly not as bad as “real” rape. We live in a world where the terms “rape-rape” and “legitimate rape” have actually been used to suggest that only the worst of the worst rapes should even be considered criminal offenses at all.

This is bad writing, if Dawkins was setting out to create clear-cut examples of the principle he’s trying to illustrate. When explaining a principle, it’s unwise to go straight for examples that the public is legitimately confused about because other people are trying to muddy the waters. A concise, clear writer would do what I did, which is use clear examples to illuminate, instead of clawing at something that is actually contentious in our culture.

Finally Ophellia Benson's Response at Butterflies and Wheels

Logic and rhetoric
/snip
So, in fact, even though Richard is right about the logic, he seems to be forgetting about rhetoric, and we know he understands that kind of rhetoric because in “Dear Muslima” he used it himself.

So it’s not that he’s wrong about the logic, it’s just that that’s not all there is to it.

[MADem]

2. Good grief...

Accidental death is bad.

Murder is worse.

The VICTIM still ends up DEAD.

Make that bozo go AWAY....!

[skepticscott]

6. Agreed..our legal systems rank all sorts of crimes

As more or less serious than others. They classify some forms of criminal sexual conduct as worse than others, and no one seems to get their shorts in a knot about it. Apparently any opportunity to bash Dawkins for it is just too tempting for the usual gang of internet hacks, though.

[MADem]

8. Well, my point was that Dawkins was not considering the victim. At all.

Dead is dead, and rape is rape. It doesn't matter if you went to a movie first, really. That really doesn't mitigate the crime. It might have lowered the defenses of the victim, but that doesn't make it "better."

He really shouldn't try to express complex thoughts using 140 characters. It never ends well.

[skepticscott]

9. Well, no.. considering the audience out there

But they also have trouble comprehending when he takes whole books to express things.

Some stupid there's just no cure for.

[Starboard Tack]

10. Ah yes! The audience, of course, it must be the audience's fault.

When our hero says something offensive to women, it must be their lack of comprehension

The concept of infallibility appears to have spread beyond the walls of the Vatican.

In that context, can we assume that you agree with Dawkins' Ex Cathedra tweet

"Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think."

As someone who has been justly accused of mansplaining more than once, I think Mr. Dawkins should probably stay away from the world of Twitter and stick to writing books, where he has time to think before clicking the "send" button.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. His point may be Aikins level tone-deaf to an American audience.

But that isn't his doing, it's the doing of a political party that is trying to hand-wave away some types of rape as 'not legit' as a casualty in their crusade to make sure every single embryo is carried to term, and to hell with what the woman hosting it thinks.

So yeah, here in this audience, that's going to go over like the Hindenburg.

But our legal system fundamentally recognizes, even in sentencing guidelines, that there is a difference between Date Rape, and Assault with a Deadly Weapon + Rape. The justice system isn't suggesting that Date Rape isn't a crime.

(He also falls afoul of an assumption, that date rape does not also sometimes include a knife held to the throat, or other physical coercion.)

Typical blunt-as-hell Dawkins. Mechanically correct, but it is unwise to say such things in our current political climate, where a significant portion of the population is clearly confused on what consent means, and what rape means, and they have enough elected officials to cause problems over it, trying to weaken protections around date rape, or make it not a crime at all.

Idle speculation, but perhaps the laws, and social culture in England might mean that tweet is received entirely differently there, than it is here? The 'Don't Rape' campaign that placed the burden on the rapist, rather than the victim, in the UK seemed to be popular and workable social commentary, and less so here in the US.

[Starboard Tack]

34. I think he has crossed the pond enough times to know his "audience"

He has a little catching up to do in terms of his personal evolution.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. The comment was certainly lacking in tact and awareness of a very real

political battle happening in the US. That's for sure.

[skepticscott]

69. Yes, if anyone still clings to the idea of creationism

After reading Dawkins' books, they have a stupid that can't be cured. That problem is most assuredly with the audience.

Feel free to disagree.

[Starboard Tack]

73. You seem to be the only one still clinging to creationism, like it's some kind of obsession.

I think the rest of us got over that a long, long time ago, but keep banging the same old drum if it makes you happy. The choir went home already. And the audience is yawning.
We don't do creationism much around here, in case you hadn't noticed. Maybe you could find someone to convert at a fundie convention.

[skepticscott]

80. You must have nothing else but blather

If you're saying that I'm "clinging" to creationism as if I believe it.

And I'm not sure who the "we" is, but there are plenty of influential people who still do cling to it, and the fight to keep it out of public schools and the thinking of rational people isn't even close to over.

[Starboard Tack]

85. Yes, well the OP wasn't about creationism, was it?

But you had to bring it up, because you don't care to address the bigotry of Dawkins. The "we" would be the members of DU who frequent this group. If you think that we are advocates of creationism, then you haven't been paying attention. If you think anyone here supports religion in public schools, then you haven't been paying attention on that one either.
You seem more concerned with insulting fellow DUers and their families than actually discussing the subject at hand.
Still working on that "marginalizing "thing, I guess.

[riqster]

77. Rule One of Public Speaking: "Don't blame the audience".

A seasoned public speaker knows this. It is our job to get our point across, not the audience's.

[Brettongarcia]

86. Rule One of Science and Logic: Don't follow mass opinion. Follow the facts

I don't know what the Law says in Britain about rape, vs. aggravated rape with a deadly weapon, etc.

Anybody here know? Would generally rape, with serious evidence of intent at further injury, even murder, be considered the more serious crime?

Where's Rug when we actually need him? (He's the local jailhouse lawyer, so to speak. Or possibly he even has a law degree? His professional - not emotional - input might be useful here)

[riqster]

89. The article referenced in the OP acknowledged that point.

But pointed out, quite rightly, that humans are not creatures of pure logic. So when a speaker decides what to say, he or she must consider the full range of potential reactions to their remarks.

At the current time, emotions are understandably very intense on the subject of rape. I started a thread in the lounge, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018645739 full of corn jokes: at no point did I consider a pun about, say, "reap culture". Why? Because I know that some DUers would be offended. I chose a different pun instead.

The point of the article linked in the OP is that it's not difficult to use forethought when speaking to an audience. And regardless of how a presenter might think a crowd should behave, the reality of the zeitgeist trumps any sort of "should" we might wish to use when preparing our remarks.

[cbayer]

3. The joint statement with Ophellia Benson is good and I hope a lot of people get to read it.

I tend to think that a lot of his big mistakes are generationally based. It's like he missed the whole women's movement and has been frighteningly oblivious to the discussions about rape.

I would hope that someone as bright as he is would figure out that twitter is just not his medium. He uses it to make pronouncements that just get him into trouble time after time.

[intaglio]

4. I have given my opinion of Dawkins before

That he is the product of privilege, a British Public school* education and generational lag.




[hr]
* a note for US readers. In the UK a Public school is not one funded by the state, they are extremely exclusive and expensive historical institutions. Dawkins went to Oundle.

[cbayer]

5. Thanks for supplying the clarification about public school.

I know about this, but only because I am married to a brit.

Privilege is a very interesting aspect of british culture, imo. The whole birthright thing is so foreign to most americans, though we may have some of that to a much lesser degree.

[MADem]

7. Public school is private school, but private school on steroids.

Not your Klumpfiddle Christian Academy, but your Phillips Andover, Phillips Exeter, Deerfield Academy, that kind of caliber...

[Starboard Tack]

11. He is indeed, though I don't see a problem with his education.

The "generational lag" maybe. He was hardly to blame for having the advantage of a superior education.

[intaglio]

12. Problems with his education

Snobbery, misogyny, bullying and racism are all part of the British Public School experience. Boys from upper and upper-middle class families were and are brought up in a hothouse environment isolated from the general run of society.

[Starboard Tack]

21. Well I disagree.

I went through that system in the 1950's and early 60's. So I'm quite familiar with it. Technically, it was a Direct Grant Grammar School. A kind of hybrid between independent and state run, but very traditional in many ways. Academic achievement was high priority. Masters (all Oxbridge grads) and prefects wore gowns and could beat you in various ways. Nevertheless, there was very little bullying. In fact, less than I experienced at my first school which was a local council school. I did get beaten up pretty regularly by a local bully, who resented the fact that I went to a "posh" school and wore a uniform he was unfamiliar with. When I was eleven, I was jumped on and beaten up by a gang of girls, aged around 14 or 15 from the local secondary modern, which was situated at the corner of my street. You don't see too many Public School kids in gangs. We reserved those kinds of rivalries for the rugby field.

Any misogyny that existed was no different, if not less, than that of the society as a whole. And snobbery? Hardly. Doesn't go down too well in the north of England. We're a pretty down to earth lot, regardless of our schooling.

I got into my secondary school, not because of being upper class, but via a scholarship. There was no racism. We had four minority students, two of East Indian descent and two of African. Those of us who came from families of lesser means were treated equally. There was no hothouse environment or isolation, with the sole exception that we were not permitted to play soccer on school grounds. It was considered a plebeian sport.

I didn't particularly enjoy my school days, but I did get a good education.

[intaglio]

37. Well my father and mother would utterly disagree with you

Father was an Alleynian and played Fives for the school, Mother went to Cheltenham. Both agree that none of their children would be exposed to the type of physical, mental and sexual abuse that they and others had to endure.

Now go forth and multiply

[Starboard Tack]

44. I think much of it is regional. We thought anyone from south of Birmingham was a snob.

Also, ours was not a boarding school. So, we were allowed to escape back into the real world every day. School was 6 days a week though. I'm sure your parents got a good education, regardless.
I remember two boys who were openly gay and there was an instance when some nasty graffiti referring to them was discovered, carved into a desk. The headmaster assembled the entire school and announced that such behavior (the insulting graffiti) would not be tolerated. This was in 1960. It was a boys school. Nobody cared about homosexuality. It was normal for adolescent boys to play with each other. Most of us did at one time or another. I never heard of any sexual abuse at school.
Glad I didn't go to Dulwich.
I have an old friend visiting next week who went to Harrow. I'll ask him how it was there.

[intaglio]

52. As my Grand Uncle observed

Harrow, the damp place on the marshes - Grand Uncle Pen was no fan of his school either

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Generation and culture.

He lives in England, does he not?

Social policy/activism around rape is quite different in England than it is here. Even right here on DU, some people went apeshit with opposition, at the idea of focusing on telling men not to rape (and why, and what consent means, etc), rather than telling women how to avoid rape (thus simply shuffling around the victims, and doing nothing about the rate of rape).

This is a PSA in the UK around rape:



Such focus on anti-rape education is relatively new in the US, and extremely contentious here.

[cbayer]

33. I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Are you saying the the UK has been more progressive when it comes to rape education and prevention?

If so, doesn't that make Dawkins comments even more abhorrent?

[AtheistCrusader]

36. I would assume the opposite.

I think Dawkins' statement is only likely to be offensive in a culture that is currently wrangling with one political party that doesn't apparently consider date rape as a crime.

In one of the responses to the OP, in the quote by Amanda Marcott:
"It’s a bit of passive-aggressive weirdness, for sure. I don’t think anyone objects to the initial statement, of course. He’s right that it is logical! Pearl Jam is bad. Dave Matthews Band is worse. That is not an endorsement of Pearl Jam. Stubbing your toe is bad. Getting it cut off is worse. That is not an endorsement of stubbing your toe. Wine coolers are bad. Mad Dog is worse. That is not an endorsement of wine coolers."

That's the literal logic of what Dawkins said. It is entirely accurate.

Where it falls on its face, is in a culture that is currently battling a rabid pack of assholes that actually seek to minimize the recognition of date rape as a crime at all. Neolithic assholes that think a woman having alcohol-impaired judgment is implied consent.

Absent that cultural battle that is raging right now, in the US, I don't think his statement is controversial. Marcott is dead-on. He was right to choose an analogy, but he was wrong to pick an issue that is a very real, open, raw wound in American society, right now, this minute on political battlefields nation-wide.

On the other hand... he is not an American.

[cbayer]

39. Right, his comment is not offensive in progressive countries like Britain.

It's only offensive in this backward American culture. You don't even think it's controversial?

Seriously?

Piece of advice - defending him at this point is a really bad idea.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. As I said upthread, it was certainly an insensitive thing to say.

In this thread fork, I am speculating about the social culture in the UK. I did not make an absolute statement. Perhaps that was over-optimistic speculation, I don't know.

That PSA I posted upthread was going around in the UK several years before this topic was raised in the US, and when it finally was raised, even right here on DU there were massive monkey-shit-flinging fights in GD on the idea of focusing on the men who rape, rather than on the traditional focus of telling women how to avoid rape, which really just passes the buck to some other unfortunate woman who ends up raped, because the problem has not been addressed (the existence of rapists).

I was speculating when I said, perhaps his statement is less controversial in the UK. I base that upon social commentary/PSA/rape education that has been going on in the UK much longer than it has been here, and also recognizing the absolute freak-out firestorm similar materials recently presented in the US caused.

Right here on DU. 400+ reply threads, hides all over the place, people unable to post, etc. Right here. Not even in the general populace. I mean, people were alerting on the rape threads, just because they didn't want to see any more such threads. That's how bad it got.

We got issues, here in America.

[cbayer]

42. If anything, I suspect his comment will be more controversial in countries

that have a rather enlightened stance on rape, not less so.

It would be in countries that think that raping your date is not a big deal, well certainly not as big a deal as holding a knife to someone's throat, that this might be seen as a-ok.

Yes, we have issues right here in america and DU has issues and so does Dawkins.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. I think it's that context that you are assuming, that is the problem.

He specifies quite clearly that it was not a defense of date rape. But depending on one's interpretation of the first sentence, and the weight given to the second, the outcome is different.

Here in the US it is bound to be controversial, because that will sound, to us, like minimization of date rape as a crime or a thing at all, because hey, we have prominent elected officials casting doubt on the concept in the nightly news. Dawkins says plainly he isn't minimizing it, but it sounds awfully familiar, very similar to what some very real US political dirtbags have been saying of late.

They have made date rape controversial here, in the US. Anywhere it is not controversial, I would expect that statement to be less offensive. But again, speculation on UK culture, just based on social commentary observations. It just seems to me, as an observer, that the idea that date rape IS A CRIME, is less controversial in the UK than it is in the US.

[cbayer]

49. Please, I've read all his lame explanations and don't need them repeated to me.

He made a very, very stupid comment. Those that try to defend him at this point appear to be little else by sycophants.

The article I posted is from the UK, from the most highly regarded news outlet in the UK and by a by an Australian Journalist and feminist.

Do you think date rape should not be a crime? I surely hope not. It's no longer controversial in the US, by the way, unless you are living in a cave somewhere.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. Oh yeah, try and spin it on me. Very nice.

Let's pretend that I didn't say everything I said upthread about the SOURCE of that controversy and try and make it *me* that doesn't recognize date rape as rape.

This is probably the most dishonest thing you have ever pulled here, and anyone who reads this thread can clearly see it.

We're done here.

[intaglio]

13. More responses to Richard (are you sure your last name isn't Head?) Dawkins

Hemant Mehta at "The Friendly Atheist"

Really? Of all the examples he could’ve chosen, one of the best-known authors in the world went with pedophilia and date rape? “Mild pedophilia,” to many, probably makes as much sense as a “slight decapitation,” and saying that some rapes are worse (or better?) than others isn’t a good way to win people over to his side.

David Futrelle at "we hunted the mammoth"

Yep, that’s right. He decided to do what comedians call a “callback” to some terrible comments he made last year about what he perversely described as “mild pedophilia.” And then he added asshattery to asshattery by suggesting a similar distinction between “date rape” and “stranger rape.”

Anyone seeing these comments as insensitive twaddle designed to minimize both “mild” pedophilia and date rape has good reason to do so. As you may recall, in the earlier controversy about so-called “mild” pedophilia, Dawkins told an interviewer for the Times magazine that

I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.

/snip

Huh. If Dawkins says that a teacher groping him was no big deal, I guess this kind of “mild” abuse shouldn’t be a big deal for anyone else, either, huh?

I’m pretty sure there’s some sort of logical fallacy here.

[okasha]

81. Thanks for those responses.

I think Mehta's "slight decapitation" is the best comment yet.

[eShirl]

14. he's beginning to sound like a troll, honestly

I mean, why even say that in the first place? To get angry responses with which to argue.

[cbayer]

16. He has always thrived on controversy, but I think he is going too far.

He's even losing his supporters.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. unlike, for example, the pope enthusiasts, who cannot lose their enthusiasm

despite the overt deliberate and repeated misogyny and homophobia of the pope and his church.

[rug]

23. Look, over there, a butterfly!

[Starboard Tack]

28. I saw that flutter by. Hilarious.

[trotsky]

15. Well, thanks for the flamebait, cbayer.

A post about Richard Dawkins that has nothing to do with religion or atheism. Way to encourage fruitful, productive, respectful discussion.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Well at least she didn't preface the discussion with an admonition for all atheists to shut up.

I'll give her that much credit.

[trotsky]

20. Hey, I guess we'll take what we can get. n/t

[rug]

24. Of course! Most of his follwers on twitter are evolutionary biologists.

[hrmjustin]

29. He is a well known Atheist so I think it is fine here.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Everyone is *something*.

This issue doesn't have to do with religion, except as a means to impugn his character as a social commentator on religion.

(In this case, deserved, but still not relevant.)

[hrmjustin]

43. So if the pope or religious leaders make comments on an issue not having to do with religion it shou

not be posted here?

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Dawkins isn't a religious leader.

People seem determined to invest a bit more credibility in him, than he has earned, as an 'atheist leader'.
For reasons we have discussed in the past, such as his apparent insensitivity to sexism, etc.


There are no high priests of atheism that dictate atheist doctrine. Regardless of whether some people might self-style themselves as such. Clearly he wants to start, and lead a movement, but that doesn't automatically mean he is worthy, or followed.

Same is true of Harris, or the late Hitchens, etc. All individuals with very real, glaring faults, such as Hitchens' sexism, warmongering, etc.

[hrmjustin]

47. Well correct me if I am wrong but he has been linked to by atheists here.

Ops on his work have been posted by atheists here.


Sorry but he is a famous atheist and his mistakes and dumb statements will be posted here. I know it makes some uncomfortable vbut they sill havd to get over it.

I survive posts on dumb and bigoted pastors and religious leaders so atheists can survive this.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. But any given statement we link to, that he makes, is either true or false on its face.

When the pope says 'same sex marriage is the work of the devil', I cannot test that claim.

When Dawkins makes a claim about the evolutionary nature of social mores, we can test that. We can review studies. We can gather evidence from societies that still exist worldwide in various stages of development. His claim can be proven wrong, or supported.

Dawkins is just a man. One man. That's it. Anything he says is either true, or rubbish, and I don't see any atheists around here that won't take him to task when he spouts rubbish. Indeed, that happened this morning. I'm sure his voicemail inbox is full right now, and not just from detractors, but likely supporters, or former supporters.

[hrmjustin]

50. Point is he made an asinine statement and it is going to be posted here.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Ok.

Not my leader though, and no reflection on me, or anyone else. Just on Dawkins.

[hrmjustin]

56. Yes, just like when a religious leaders does something stupid it does not reflect on me.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Is the pope your leader? I thought not so much.

I don't hold you to explain doctrine or church law promulgated by the RCC.

[hrmjustin]

59. I am not aiming it at you but there are those here who give me a hard time if I say the nicest thing

About him.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. That's ok. I just had someone with the temerity to ask me if I think date rape is rape, right after

I used every bold, italic, all caps option the site has, to clearly state it is rape and a crime, just because I speculated the context of Dawkins' tweet might be received differently in a society with a clearer grasp of consent, and has better-received the message about men taking responsibility for, and educational countermeasures against, rape.

[hrmjustin]

62. Of course it is rape. I think Dawkins needs to just talk about other things.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. I agree. In this case, he tried to explain one third rail he stepped on, by going and standing on

another.

I liked the Nickelback/Dave Matthews band analogy in the first response. I thought that was much safer/illustrative of his original point.

[edhopper]

17. This is an absolutely stupid thing to say.

But what was the context? I read the article and did not see why he wrote this. What was he referring to? Was he answering another tweet?
It seems an odd (and as I said, completely inappropriate) thing to say out of the blue.

[cbayer]

22. Do tweets have context? I think not.

[Goblinmonger]

25. Of course they do.

Pretty much everything has context. You understood that tweet in a specific manner because of your feelings toward Dawkins. That's context.

[trotsky]

32. Well said, GM.

You understood that tweet in a specific manner because of your feelings toward Dawkins. That's context.

Bingo.

[edhopper]

54. Yes

most do. They are in response to something.
I can't see Dawkins just tweeting this out of the blue.
Of course it doesn't change the wrongness of the tweet, I am just curious about where it came from.

[cbayer]

58. You may be right.

I have limited experience with tweets and in general they seem to just be random, useless thoughts that someone thought the world should know about.

So have you found any context for this? The only possible explanation I have seen is that he was digging up the pedophile comment again, which was just as bad as this.

I think he just hates being wrong.

[edhopper]

61. I found this

it appears it sprung from tweets about the Israel/Hamas conflict.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/30/ignorant-obvious-bullst-strong-reactions-to-atheist-richard-dawkins-tweets-about-date-rape-stranger-rape-and-violent-pedophilia/

This is a side issue BTW. He shouldn't have said it.
His writings (books and essays) are well thought out and thought provoking. His tweets are sometimes the opposite. Perhaps not the best avenue for him to use.

[cbayer]

64. So he was trying to make some logical point and chose this as an example, I guess.

I would agree that tweets are not his best medium.

[edhopper]

66. I can think of dozens of better examples.

how about pickpocketing and armed assault and robbery are both crimes, both involve physical contact and stealing, one is worse.

[cbayer]

74. All of us can think of dozens of better examples.

I'm not sure whether he just like to generate heat or is really that oblivious.

Either way, he probably ought to stay way from twitter.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. This is certainly true.

[Goblinmonger]

26. That's a horrible thing to say.

Not sure what discussion prompted him to tweet that, but it was something he shouldn't have said (or thought, really).

I wish those that want to paint Dawkins--a relatively powerless person that is not the leader of any group--would take some of that energy and face it toward the Pope who is a much more powerful person leading an enormous organization whose attitudes and comments have more far reaching impact. That said, what Dawkins said was not cool.

[Starboard Tack]

31. Good for you GM for addressing the OP

I'm sure, whenever the Pope makes a tweet like this there will be some outcry. Glad to see you're not giving Dicky a free ride on this.

[hrmjustin]

35. A creepy and horrible thing to say.

[roody]

55. Is he the one who recently commented on

the GMO issue?

[rug]

63. Are you referring to this?

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/richard-dawkins-talks-gmo-crops/

[LeftishBrit]

65. He is an elderly white public-school-educated British male, with a lot of the prejudices that such

people often have. In addition, he likes a bit of publicity.

That's what's happened to him.

He is a very clever evolutionary biologist; that doesn't mean he 's sensible about everything.

Nor does it detract from (or support) atheism.

[edhopper]

70. Too bad this will do damage to the Atheist Movement

He should think about stepping down as one of it's leaders.

[hrmjustin]

71. I doubt it will and it shouldn't. He is a jerk.

[edhopper]

72. It was a joke

and yes this was a jerky thing to say.

[cbayer]

75. As with most ideological leaders, it will not be up to him to step down,

but up to his followers to give him the boot.

There are a lot of good people out there advancing the causes that atheists and agnostics hold dear. He should be told to step aside.

[edhopper]

79. Step down from what???

I was being sarcastic.
There is nothing to boot him from.

[cbayer]

83. There is no official position, but he is widely considered a leader

and spokesperson.

Well, he was, but I think that is fading fast.

[skepticscott]

88. "Widely considered"? By who?

Show us some atheists who consider Richard Dawkins their "leader". If he's "widely considered" as a leader, there should be thousands and thousands of people out there who identify themselves as his "followers". Point us to them.

Here's betting you can't.

[CBGLuthier]

76. With no recourse of an eternal afterlife he is in the process of going up his own ass

[okasha]

82. I was going to post

that it's well past time he retired to a farm in Cornwell to raise vegetable marrows--squash on this side of the Pond--but I think your comment quite outdoes mine.

[mike_c]

78. this is one reason that I will never have a Twitter account....

Hell, it took me years to learn to control the urge to say whatever came to mind on Facebook or here, on DU. Twitter is just too damned immediate. It should be restricted to use by people who are VERY circumspect and careful about what they post.

[cbayer]

84. I am with you I will never have one.

I also don't post on Facebook for some of the same reasons.

DU is where I talk….

and talk and talk and talk.

[Brettongarcia]

87. Even then, Twitter has been too short to allow necessary qualifiers and nuances

Not to mention the famous security problems.

I closed my Twitter accounts.