A Dawkins No-No

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What has Dawkins said that isn't true?

Read any of his books. You'll see plenty.

But I suppose you only mean "in this case." Well, in this case, he's dishonestly grovelled to cancel culture, and sold out his own right to free speech. He's abandoned his original commitment to the value of public discussion, bowed down, and let the Leftists wipe their boots on him.

Perhaps humans passed their peak a couple of decades ago and the only path ahead is ever-increasing insanity. It certainly looks that way.

About that, I have to agree with you.

I only asked for one example.

His comments were too ambiguous to place judgement. Did he actually apologise?

Humans will take the path of least resistance--like everything else. What could be easier than being part of an internet mob? You don't even have to use your real name.

You shouldn't be so pleased about Dawkins' downfall. He's a lone voice of reason and says a lot of things you would agree with.

[Immanuel Can]

Humans will take the path of least resistance--like everything else. What could be easier than being part of an internet mob? You don't even have to use your real name.

No doubt that's true. But not all humans will do that. A person who believes in his principles will stand and fight, if the issue is important. And I would say that our freedom to "discuss" issues, rather than hating, silencing, abusing (and so forth) each other is so fundamental it's a place at which one should stand.

What Mr. Dawkins didn't seem to realize is that he was "dead meat," so far as the extreme Left is concerned, the minute he just pointed out their insane inconsistency. His best course, as Henry suggests, would have been to stick to his guns. It also would have been the moral thing for him to do, of course. But if he fought them, they might at least have a grudging respect for him...and he might put a dent in their smugness. And eventually, they'd dismiss him and leave him alone.

But folding, excusing, apologizing...they're useless in terms of placating the radical Left. They'll just bury him faster, because they'll recognize it for what it is...weakness. Just as he has picked on Christians when he thought he was in popular favour, so they will grind him up because they're sure he's now out of public favour. He won't deserve it for what he said, it's true...but they don't care about truth, just about 'winning' and demonstrating their ideological zeal.

[henry quirk]

Truth is: when someone is cancelled, they themselves do the cancelling.

That's very true.

The other thing is this...and you'll find it's an infallible rule...if you kneel down to *the Left, it's just so they can kick you in the face. Count on it.

*I don't think left and right are meaningful distinctions any more.

And I think we get ourselves twisted around tryin' to distinguish between strains of thinkin'.

Oh, Bernie, he's not a communist or socialist...he's a democratic socialist...that's entirely different.

Oh, Rand Paul, he's not a conservative or republican...he's a libertarian...that's entirely different.

We all do it, includin' me, this boxing up of ideas...it's wrong-headed and self-defeating.

If we strip away ideology and category, get to the root of things, inevitably we find only free men and slavers.

Viewed this way it becomes clear just how skewed it all is.

Many of our friends, we discover, aren't, and the loyal opposition is revealed to be simply the enemy.

What was a difference of opinion is, we find, really the difference between Aesop's battered rangy wolf and the comfortable fat house-dog.

Dialogue, diplomacy, reaching across the aisle, compromise, we see, aren't roads to solution but chutes to the abbatoir.

(How can there be accommodation between the free man and the slaver? Every concession, by either side, only serves the slaver: Well, okay...I can't wear the leash all the time, but -- in the spirit of fellowship -- I'll wear it Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and alternating Sundays. Well, okay...I'd rather have you under heel 24/7, but -- in the spirit of fellowship -- you can be free Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, and alternating Sundays.)

Democracy is forced into the light and we see it not as noble experiment (one man-one vote) but as the predation it is.

(Two wolves and one sheep vote on what to have for dinner...)

No, the left is not the devil here, nor is the right.

We gotta start lookin' behind the curtain and we best do it now.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Truth is: when someone is cancelled, they themselves do the cancelling.

That's very true.

The other thing is this...and you'll find it's an infallible rule...if you kneel down to *the Left, it's just so they can kick you in the face. Count on it.

*I don't think left and right are meaningful distinctions any more.

And I think we get ourselves twisted around tryin' to distinguish between strains of thinkin'.

Oh, Bernie, he's not a communist or socialist...he's a democratic socialist...that's entirely different.

Oh, Rand Paul, he's not a conservative or republican...he's a libertarian...that's entirely different.

We all do it, includin' me, this boxing up of ideas...it's wrong-headed and self-defeating.

If we strip away ideology and category, get to the root of things, inevitably we find only free men and slavers.

Viewed this way it becomes clear just how skewed it all is.

Many of our friends, we discover, aren't, and the loyal opposition is revealed to be simply the enemy.

What was a difference of opinion is, we find, really the difference between Aesop's battered rangy wolf and the comfortable fat house-dog.

Dialogue, diplomacy, reaching across the aisle, compromise, we see, aren't roads to solution but chutes to the abbatoir.

(How can there be accommodation between the free man and the slaver? Every concession, by either side, only serves the slaver: Well, okay...I can't wear the leash all the time, but -- in the spirit of fellowship -- I'll wear it Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and alternating Sundays. Well, okay...I'd rather have you under heel 24/7, but -- in the spirit of fellowship -- you can be free Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, and alternating Sundays.)

Democracy is forced into the light and we see it not as noble experiment (one man-one vote) but as the predation it is.

(Two wolves and one sheep vote on what to have for dinner...)

No, the left is not the devil here, nor is the right.

We gotta start lookin' behind the curtain and we best do it now.

Bravo Henry. Sometimes you do get it right.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The enemy is ANYONE who wants to take away free speech no matter what side of the spectrum they claim to be from.

[Immanuel Can]

Truth is: when someone is cancelled, they themselves do the cancelling.

That's very true.

The other thing is this...and you'll find it's an infallible rule...if you kneel down to *the Left, it's just so they can kick you in the face. Count on it.

*I don't think left and right are meaningful distinctions any more.

I'm not so sure. What I am sure about is that you are correct that "right" doesn't automatically mean "good." Right-wing ideologies can become toxic, self-absorbed, and ideologically blind, just as Left-wing ones can be.

But the distinction isn't a wash. The problem is that the Left tends to be collectivist; and collectivism magnifies evil. More people involved means more force is being exerted in the bad direction. So what is a personal problem, a local problem, or an individual injustice on the right is often a "movement," or a mob on the Left. That's also why propaganda, language control, dictatorship and censorship are main vices of the Left. On the right, maybe the tendency to put individual freedoms before personal or social responsibility is the biggest issue. Both sides are equally capable of license, greed, jealousy, racism, ideological blindness, self-satisfaction, pride, and so on.

But you're right that...

No, the left is not the devil here, nor is the right.

The problem's on both sides, I admit. It has to do with the deep fallibilities of human beings, common to both sides. However, in contexts where numbers are greater and group-think is more prevalent, the manifestation of those fallibilities is proportionally greater. I would say we are safer in a mass of uncoordinated individuals, even if they are doing some undesirable things, than we ever are when we're surrounded by masses who are coordinated on a bad project.

We gotta start lookin' behind the curtain and we best do it now.

Fair enough. But while we do this looking, we'd be wiser not to be embarking on grand, collective projects. It's safer if we don't give ourselves to big movements until we understand the right and wrong of what we are actually doing.

[henry quirk]

It's mob rule.

No, it's the folks directin' the mob.


In case you hadn't noticed the world is being run via social media now.

Agitprop delivered faster: unimpressive.


That's the way it is at the this time in social evolution. There wasn't much Trump could do when social media silenced him. The idiot mob gets most of its information from social media.

Faster ain't evoluition, ain't better (i'm a member of The Lead Pencil Club). He is less visible, not impotent. The idiot mob has always clung to the grape vine...same as it always was.


And it's relgious nuts like you and IC

Speakin' only for me: yep, I'm a religious nut: I believe there is a Maker; I believe personhood is within the person , not bestowed upon him; I believe ownness is part & parcel to personhood, as is free will. I'm quite happy bein' a religious nut.


who might as well be singing the praises of the woke, because every time you open your stupid mouths you are playing RIGHT into their hands.

Nope. Shuttin' up is exactly what they want (you think masks are just to stop a virus?).


That's what Dawkins was getting at.

He tried to speak and wilted.


Would you seriously call him 'right wing'?

No. I called him a coward.


He's a SCIENTIST. He goes with facts and evidence.

This whole he's a scientist deal doesn't mean much. Scientists can wilt like any other. Dawkins illustrated that pretty clearly. Facts and evidence are for shit if, at the first sign of trouble, you grovel and whine apologies.

Dawkins may yet redeem himself, may find his testes and tell the horde to -- as I say -- get bent, but I ain't holdin' my breath waitin' on him to step up.

[henry quirk]

The problem is that the Left tends to be collectivist;

From where I stand, I seein' ain't much different from the right.

I hear a lot of jibber-jabber about American exceptionalism and individualism from the right, but -- even when they're in power -- gov seems to keep growin'; regs seems to deepen, and multiply; free enterprise retreats further into the shadows; and the one is swamped by the many. And not just the right: the libertarians, hoodwinked into consequentialism, embrace bullshit like the basic guaranteed income.

Collectivism -- this sewing folks together ass to mouth -- infects all the parties, and the ideologies.


we'd be wiser not to be embarking on grand, collective projects. It's safer if we don't give ourselves to big movements until we understand the right and wrong of what we are actually doing.

Always.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I'm pretty sure that Ron Swanson was modelled on Henry.

[henry quirk]

I'm pretty sure that Ron Swanson was modelled on Henry.

I take that as a compliment.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I have to admit he has a certain charm...

[henry quirk]

A cartoon like Henry might think they should go on a shooting spree

Yep...I'm the 4 color, indestructible, *Carnivorous Slobbius.

Guns are always last resort...I ain't Elmer.




*No Prize time! Who am I?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

[Immanuel Can]

The enemy is ANYONE who wants to take away free speech no matter what side of the spectrum they claim to be from.

I agree. That being said, people who refuse to use their speech wisely, with due regard for others or in the interest of the common good, are often to blame for discrediting free speech. They make it easier for the speech-Nazis to justify clamping down on all dissent. So the alternative to government control of speech is not irresponsible speech, but wise, thoughtful self-controlled speech.

It seems to me that Dawkins was nowhere near irresponsible in raising the issues he raised; and saying "discuss" is just about the most open way to invite conversation and problem solving. That's all good.

It's really the fault of his detractors that they were offended. His question disclosed them as defenders of two positions that are absurd, incompatible, unrealistic and hypocritical. Their anger and their refusal even of discussion are powerful testimony that even they know they are wrong...that their position is rationally vulnerable. They know that even a little discussion cannot fail to expose their folly further. So they must refuse discussion, re-direct and deflect to hatred, and shut down their opponent before discussion can even be had.

[henry quirk]

Wile E. Coyote

no No Prize for you...