His comments seem somewhat reasonable if not slightly politically incorrect. I feel like having an opinion isn't an option when it comes to the trans topic. Any thoughts counter to the pro trans movement is immediately vehemently wrong.
I have trans friends and respect their choice but also understand that people are allowed to have their own thoughts about the issue.
My entire EXISTENCE being compared to literal racism is not something I should be required to respect. No minority group should be asked to just accept that some people are allowed to be bigoted against them.
Remember that time he excused a woman getting sexually assaulted in an elevator by an Atheist, and he just shrugged it off as "A Muslim would have done worse" and claimed she was overreacting... haha... Dawkins is a piece of shit.
He has also argued for Non-Local Consciousness and claims to be a "Cultural Christian", so I wonder if he's even an Atheist anymore....
Do you have a source for that; what I could find in a quick Google about his statements on rape is his arguments on X is bad and Y is worse. Which is more of a logical argument, but this does not include "a Muslim would have done worse".
Quote by him:
"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."
These statements are bound to be controversial as people might somehow interpret X is not bad as Y is worse. But I would disagree, this is more of a thought experiment in which you can always have a worse situation.
I understand he's a respected biologist and people like him for being one of the "Four Horseman of the New Atheist Movement" (Such an overly dramatic title), but he's a genuinely horrible human being.
Interesting, thanks for sharing. It really does seem out of place to suddenly reference the suffering of Muslim women in this context.
He seems to elaborate in that he just thinks this case was an overreaction on the side of the woman who felt uneasy, but that of course is a different discussion. We're not comparing suffering here. I understand the negativity he seems to have brought up on himself better now.
True, but the thing, as I don't base my entire fucking identity around it to the point where I'm openly bragging about it, despite trying to be the figurehead of New Atheism (New Atheism and Atheism are different things)
The whole New Atheist movement and cries of cultural xtianity came about due to the rise of militant Islam. They were appealing to a particular audience.
It was always “religion is bad but Islam is especially bad” from Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris.
His wording is a bit harsh, but I don't think what he says should receive such a backlash. He expresses hard stances on religion as well, which can hurt people in a similar way as that's also part of their identity.
I think he's not entirely accurate here though, as there can really be biological mixes / nuances in the sex of people. Even if you exclude the gender discussion on top. It's all just a gradual thing I'd guess, even possibly inconsistent in 'percentage' on different parts of the body.
And all in all it's also dependent on our culture how we perceive some things as feminine and masculine.
I don't get why we can't agree that biologically people tend to be on a multidimensional spectrum, which sometimes is too ambiguous for the naked eye to pin a binary value on. Even scientifically it could be difficult to determine. Above all, on the gender side we indeed should have the courtesy to trust how someone feels and likes to be perceived in this world.
But we can also not blame people for expressing uneasiness if the biological sex and gender are too far apart in how we defined it culturally over thousands of years. One cannot avoid some conflict there.
Hopefully we can try to better ourselves and respect others, in both ways.
This looks like something from Viz magazine. They'll regularly have big one page jokes about something and then have these little made up side bits in.
Whole thing was probably about illegal immigrants taking small boats to the hundred acre wood and then there's this little bit in the bottom.
In their case, you can't play the "stuffed animal" card, but you can still play the "anthropomorphized" card that all the others can as well. Animals that are able to reason and talk to one another are less likely to consider each other prey.
It's probably from an hour long portrait interview, in which they cover a lot of ground including favourite English literary pieces, and the interviewer tries to tie it to the guest. They would probably ask David Beckham which Harry Potter character he'd have on his football team.
I have a feeling that A.A. Milne might just wanted to call a character the N-word, then first had a dream about how badly it aged, then in a second one how far racist gamers can go to say at least a "censored" version of it online.
