Search Episodes
Listen, Share, & Support
Listen to the latest episode
Subscribe via iTunes
Subscribe via RSS
Become a fan
Follow on Twitter

Support Us:

Please consider making a donation to help make this podcast possible. Any contribution, great or small, helps tremendously!

Subscribe to E-Mail Updates

Related Readings
  • Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life
    Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life
    by Massimo Pigliucci
  • Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk
    Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk
    by Massimo Pigliucci
  • Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science
    Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science
    by Massimo Pigliucci

RS 152 - Dan Fincke on “The pros and cons of civil disagreement”

Release date: February 7, 2016

Dan Fincke

Julia invites philosopher and blogger Dan Fincke onto the show, inspired by a productive disagreement they had on Facebook. Their topic in this episode: civility in public discourse. Do atheists and skeptics have a responsibility to be civil when expressing disagreement, and does that responsibility vary depending on who their target is? Is there a legitimate role for offensive satire? And might there be downsides to civility?

Dan and Julia also revisit the subject of their original disagreement: the recent NECSS decision to rescind Richard Dawkins' speaking invitation, on account of a video he tweeted which compared feminists to Islamists. Dan and Julia attempt to put the Dawkins case study in the broader context of the civility debate, asking questions like: What makes something offensive, and can someone be *unjustifiably* offended?

Dan's Pick: "Foundations of Ethics: An Anthology" edited by Russ Shafer‐Landau and Terence Cuneo
Dan and Julia's Facebook Conversation That Inspired the Episode

Podcast edited by Brent Silk


Full Transcripts 


Reader Comments (24)

I really appreciated hearing Dan's views on this controversy. I continue to struggle with the Dawkins disinvitation, in that I can see valid arguments on both sides. When the decision to rescind the invitation was first announced, my gut reaction was to protest it as a form of censorship; you and others quickly pointed out that, strictly speaking, Dawkins wasn't being censored, since NECSS has no obligation to offer him a forum, and he has multiple other venues in which to express himself. Then I read both Steve Novella's position statement on the matter, and Massimo's commentary. I found myself feeling very sympathetic to Steve and the NECSS committee, particularly with respect to the difficult position in which they found themselves. Massimo made some excellent points as well (as one would expect), although he launched from the position that Dawkins' pre-eminence as the face of the "New Atheism" is largely undeserved. When I tweeted the link to Massimo's post, however, the ferocity of the reaction I received from rabid Dawkins followers took me aback. I was struck, as Dan alluded to in your podcast, by the emotionality of the responses, which showed a lack of reasoned argument; many attacked Massimo's position, and me for having tweeted the link, without having actually read his post. I still wonder if in fact there may be no one single correct course of action in a situation such as this -- but, as I've stated both on Twitter and Facebook, what disturbs me most is the unthinking tribalism displayed by those who claim to be my fellow skeptics and secularists -- that one is either entirely for freedom of speech in all possible situations, or else one is "anti-freedom in general." I subscribe to neither extreme, and yet I continue to search for an elusive middle ground that may not exist. Or perhaps, as Dan suggests, there is no incontrovertible rule, and each case must be decided on its own merits -- which leads inevitably to further emotion-driven conflict.
February 10, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterRichard Schloss
One of the issues on Twitter is it seems like every political cluster has their own version of the facts and they write articles to members of the in group about "the problem with x". So even with some restraint from reflexive responses and charity in interpretation it's difficult to build understanding because of the inward facing perspective. I don't think many people set out to argue against caricatures but the background social dynamics create a positive emotional feedback loop towards the in group in contrast to broader engagements which sometimes have negative emotional implications even when people are trying their best to be fair. It makes it more difficult than it should be to transcend categories, to arrive at a deeper understanding.
February 11, 2016 | Unregistered Commenterquidnunc
Thank you for the podcast. It would be valuable if you could arrange a discussion with Dawkins himself on a future episode so that he has a chance to respond to the interpretations and criticisms that've been leveled against him over the years on the show (comments by Tyson, Fincke and Massimo come to mind).
February 12, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterChristopher James
Richard Schloss:

Yes, atheists can be tribalists. Shouldn't really be surprising, because it's a powerful social motivator. I confess that my initial inclination is to defend Richard Dawkins from criticism because it usually comes from people who are upset that he criticizes religion. Unfortunately, Dawkins does give voice to petulance sometimes and Twitter has made the world more aware of it. When he was on a book tour in the US, he would sometimes be challenged on some of the caustic remarks he had made in the past. He foolishly denied that he had said those things, only to be confronted with quotations from his own publications. Oops. He really needs to back away from social media.

On the flip side, Massimo pretty much never has anything nice to say about fellow skeptics, so I tend to heavily discount his criticisms. The people he seems to hate the most are the ones that sell vastly more books than he does, but maybe that's a cynical interpretation. Anyone who communicates well understands that accuracy must take a backseat to telling a compelling story. There is a word to describe those who disagree: boring.
February 12, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterGreg Esres
Massimo has a valuable perspective. As a critic it makes sense to focus on the most popular because there is a lot of nonsense out there. Where I think he gets in trouble sometimes is he can't resist the urge to respond without doing a careful reading of what he is criticizing because he finds it distasteful, relying more on a general schema of why this or that group of ideas or people is wrong. As harsh as his assessment of Dawkins is I don't detect any of that. I see a good professional criticism of his books on evolutionary theory some of which Dawkins would probably accept, a philosophical disagreement about religion, and the latest incident on Twitter which this podcast already went over.

A background consideration is we all have political biases coloring interpretation, causing friction and a little bit of animosity when there is some distance between people (there seems to be a culture war going on between left liberals and left progressives)
February 13, 2016 | Unregistered Commenterquidnunc
Great, the slap in the face gave Dawkins a minor stroke, a cerebrovascular insult.
February 13, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterMax
But, but ... the list of core feminist values that Galef gives are things that 99% of everyone (in the developed world) agrees with. Apparently, Roosh V and Donald Trump are feminists now. This gives the impression of a "motte-and-bailey doctrine" (, like when Christians say that Christianity is simply about truth and love. The difference between Christians and feminists is that Christianity really does imply some core beliefs (cf. the Nicene creed) beyond simply truth and love, while feminism, as far as I can tell, is a grab bag (some of the contents of which are great) and so it doesn't make sense to speak of core feminist values.

Regarding the Cologne attacks, could Finke perhaps have provided an analogy not involving Nazis, or are only Nazi analogies relevant? People tend to find Nazis distracting, which can impair critical thinking.
February 13, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterGreg Pandatshang
Oh, I don't mind Nazi analogies. For example, "Attacks on Jews rise to five-year high in Germany - more than any country in Europe. Jewish leaders warn of mass emigration from Europe as Germany records more anti-Semitic incidents than any EU state."
"In the last couple of years we have seen this age-old monster come up again in Europe, which is anti-Semitism," said Frans Timmermans, the EU vice president. "I thought we knew better. I wouldn’t have thought this would be possible 20 years ago. But it is happening again."
"[In 2014], some 1,342 of the perpetrators were classed as 'right wing', seven were 'left wing' and 176 were motivated by 'foreign ideology'. However, there was a significant jump in attacks by the latter category – up from 31 in 2013."

But pointing out that last bit, the significant jump in attacks by "foreign ideology" would be Islamophobic, right? As Sam Harris pointed out, if liberals don't address this problem, the right-wingers will. And if your knee-jerk reaction is to condemn the public backlash instead of the original attacks that sparked the backlash, then you won't prevent the backlash but turn the public against you as well.
February 14, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterMax
People were denied perhaps their last chance to meet their hero because some radical feminists were offended by his retweet. By the way, he authored a book titled The God Delusion, which is offensive to religious scientists and skeptics, but that wasn't a concern since Science and Skepticism apparently doesn't need more religious people but needs more radical feminists. Of course those feminists are not just offended by Dawkins, but also by Sam Harris, the late Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, Ben Radford, Hemand Mehta, Lawrence Krauss, etc.
Well maybe I'm offended by snarky feminists like Rebecca Watson, who just tweeted "RIP Antonin Scalia, aborted by god in the 237th trimester." Don't invite her anywhere.
February 14, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterMax
Welly, welly, welly, welly, well, Dawkins was un-disinvited.
"We wish to apologize to Professor Dawkins for our handling of his disinvitation to NECSS 2016. Our actions were not professional, and we should have contacted him directly to express our concerns before acting unilaterally...
We wish to use this incident as an opportunity to have a frank and open discussion of the deeper issues implicated here, which are causing conflict both within the skeptical community and within society as a whole. NECSS 2016 will therefore feature a panel discussion addressing these topics. There is room for a range of reasonable opinions on these issues and our conversation will reflect that diversity. We have asked Professor Dawkins to participate in this discussion at NECSS 2016 in addition to his prior scheduled talk, and we hope he will accept our invitation. This statement and our discussions with Professor Dawkins were initiated prior to learning of his recent illness."
February 14, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterMax
I can't even begin to do justice to this podcast in this one post. So I'll simply put out a few points here.

Dan's right about shaming or ostracizing those who hold profoundly mistaken views is on the mark. Ridicule, degradation, hostility, and contempt do not solve problems - they only prolong them by closing the minds of the targeted group. This only delays the day of final victory (i.e. when a viewpoint is as 'dead' as one can be).

*Agreed about punching up vs punching down. It's not a matter of how powerful or powerless the target is. It's a matter of the target having a head, heart, feelings, and a sense of dignity. 99.99% of the time, the scoffer doesn't even know the totality of the target's circumstances. The target may well have genuinely positive traits, but they were shaped by their environment to think a certain way. They deserve to have their honest objections, no matter how deluded, answered in a civil and courteous manner.

*I'd argue that civility at the everyday person-to-person level toward the profoundly mistaken is a longterm good way to achieve world peace. F.ex. I find it absurd to think that Serbian elementary school children of the 1970s and early 80s (of prime combat age for the 90s Bosnian Wars) thought "One day, I'm gonna rape, murder, and massacre Bosnian Muslims". No, these attitudes had precedents - undoubtedly many of which were bad interpresonal experience with the group in question.

*Saying you're responsible for your reactions to degrading comments, insults, etc. is simply trying to absolve one's self of responsibility of hurting, harming, or degrading others. It's also funny to see these same people saying "you're responsible for your reactions" themselves react lividly to remarks about themselves that aren't nearly as insulting or degrading as they dish out to their favorite targets.

There is much more I can say about this, so I'll stop right here.
February 15, 2016 | Unregistered Commenterthelonestarpelican
<i>"NECSS 2016 will therefore feature a panel discussion addressing these topics. There is room for a range of reasonable opinions on these issues and our conversation will reflect that diversity. We have asked Professor Dawkins to participate in this discussion at NECSS 2016 in addition to his prior scheduled talk, and we hope he will accept our invitation."</i>

I like NECSS's approach here, and I think this is the kind of thing we need a lot more of. This is not the endorsement of Dawkins position that some have made it out to be, but it is a much better way to deal with that disagreement. If we're going to in any way get past the "deep rifts" in rationalism, we're going to have to do it via much discussion and airing of outright disagreements, and not by creating some kind of fake "safe space" where certain ideas are off-limits in a misguided attempt to be "welcoming".
February 15, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterIamcuriousblue
I really appreciated this discussion and found myself looking for phrases that I could use as examples to improve my own interactions (let me ask a clarifying question, one way my views have changed, etc).
The transcripts are quite handy too, although the addition of timestamps would make them even more awesome.
February 17, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterJulien Couvreur
An excellent discussion, but to my mind the link of Richard Dawkin's tweet about the video to Cologne isn't as strong as Dan described.
Dawkins tweeted about a much closer parallel from Nov. 30:

The Goldsmiths University speaker protest was just the sort of alliance portrayed in the video: the Islamic and Feminist societies joined in opposing Maryam Namazie. Goldsmiths and other speaker protests get a lot of discussion among British secular folks.

'The Goldsmiths Feminist Society also waded into the debate and released a statement saying it “stands in solidarity” with ISOC [Islamic Society], and further supported the group in “condemning the actions of the ASH [Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society].”'
February 17, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterBob G
"Is there a legitimate role for offensive satire?"
As opposed to non-offensive satire? Like what? Or is there a role for satire in general? Dan seemed to defend Charlie Hebdo and South Park, but of course radical feminists find them "problematic" as well. South Park especially skewers Social Justice Warriors. Julia and the SGU raved about Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, but his own promo touts comebacks from those he offended: “Makes people dumb,” “Very boring,” “Comedian fool,” “More unpleasant than a diuretic,” “Wee rat face.”

"Do atheists and skeptics have a responsibility to be civil when expressing disagreement, and does that responsibility vary depending on who their target is?"

The Don't Be a Dick thing again. Dan talked about punching up versus punching down, but an obvious target to punch would be another dick, or a cunt in the case of the video that Dawkins retweeted.
The video caricatured a certain loud foul-mouthed feminist bully and a certain Islamist with the YouTube username Dawah Man. However, Dawkins didn't know that, and figured that the video satirized the kinds of regressive feminists who side with Islamists against ex-Muslim women like Maryam Namazie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali who speak out against Islamist misogyny and bigotry.
February 17, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterMax
It's revolting to hear the massive cognitive dissonance coming from this SJW. And the Holocaust analogy? Wow. "You shouldn't call out Jewish people for the things they do specifically because they are following Jewish cultural and religious edicts because... um... Holocaust! Yeah, the holocaust."

The mass rapes that happened in Cologne were specifically because of the rapists' Muslim beliefs. THEY SAID SO!

I'm so sick of this bigotry of lowered expectations and no true Scotsman fallacies, "Yeah, they SAID they did it because of their beliefs but they're too dumb to know what they really mean, I know what's really happening. Plus they're not REAL Muslims."

Saying you shouldn't point out that atrocities happened specifically because of religious beliefs is not only a stupid argument, it's actually bigoted. "Those poor, dumb Muslims don't know no better. You ain't oughta make fun of thems 'cause they unedumacated trash what ain't been tolt about Jebus."

It's sicking. Vile. Disgusting.

And why don't these SJW people seem not to get satire? I think they do but are just looking for a reason to be offended. And of course we have a right not to be offended but don't have a right to freedom of speech. It's says so right there in the constitution:

Congress shall make no law that offends religion;
or allows the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or abridges the right of the people to be totally grossed out and, like, offended and stuff.
February 17, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterAnny Mous
I was listening to this program while writing a comment about your interview of Vinay Prasad. The dilemma experienced by the person who is accused of racist (or whatever) behavior in spite of the fact her intent is innocent and she embraces strong values in opposition to racism and subjectively believes her behavior conforms with those beliefs. Her dilemma is described on page 5 of the transcript.

Years ago a local organization - The Rape Crisis Center - had a staff, both paid and volunteer, that consisted of "white" women and "woman of color." Because of the mix and the nature of the group's activities it was not uncommon for a woman of color to be offended by an act or statement by one of the "privileged" white woman, and the charge was likely to be devastating to the alleged offender who lacked the intent to offend and who would have a strong subjective belief in her innocence.

As a group they dealt with prospective charges of "racist speech or behavior" by acknowledging at the time of initial employment acceptance of the proposition that while people have been historically privileged over people of color in the United States and any member of that privileged class can be insensitive to the experience of those in a group with a history of discrimination, in spite of a subjective determination to never give offense.

Thereafter, if a woman of color "charges" a white woman of racist language or behavior there's a presumption (accepted at employment) against the white woman who is obliged to do her best to understand why her language or behavior gave offense. At the same time the woman of color has an obligation to explain why the language or behavior gave offense in terms that can be understood by the woman being charged.

The provisional acceptance [as a condition of employment] of the a priori "presumptions"turns the experience of giving and taking offense turns into educational experience about the nature of "offense" and about the nature of effective communication (as in the notion of explaining a subject unknown to and defended against by the student in terms that are known to her).
February 23, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterBrian Burke
The fact that people think this is a "free speech" issue is hilariously hypocritical. You can say whatever you want, but other people can still criticize you! That is the essence of free speech, it's simply absurd that Dawkins wants special treatment for falling victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Organizations aren't obligated to invite you to events if they don't want to be seen as implicitly supporting irrational hate mongers.

Dawkins is an out of touch and privileged rich white academic who by his own words, doesn't care at all about the harrassment of women online, if the youtube channels he reposts from exist to make money off spreading and fanning the flames of harassment of women online, "she deserves all the mockery" he says, posting and supporting the work of a man that literally been given thousands of dollars on Patreon to support his inciting the harassment of random SJW women online. Sargon of Akkad literally makes money off inciting harassment of women that dare talk about feminism in video games and allegedly "infiltrating" games media (conservative reactionaries use all sorts of words, "Cultural Marxism" for example), and literally spends his time whining about those "literally whos" (dehumanization of enemies) that no one but antifeminist reactionaries care about. Dawkins supports hate, it doesn't matter what his intention is, or if the video is satirical or not.

Dawkins is possibly as pernicious as anti-vaxxers or 9/11 truthers, why shouldn't we shun someone that has fallen victim to such a delusional conservative reactionary ideology as antimfeminism? The fact is Islam and feminism are almost nothing alike, and only a politics-mind-killed reactionary would say otherwise, apparently not wanting to hate brown immigrants is "regressive leftism" hahaha what BS.It's not a coincidence that the most popular atheists are all neoconservative Islamaphobes. Dawkins literally reposts stuff from a conservative think tank antifeminist that works at a global warming denial group, He's hardly the best example of critical thought and reason!

Besides, the crude content of the satirical video doesn't matter, the real moral crime was turning the Internet Hate machine onto a random female feminist protester, Chanty Binx, who apparently is known as "Big Red" (wow, conservative ideology supporters dehumanizing their ideological opponents, sounds familiar, I bet these crypto-fascists whining about her rudeness and "hypocrisy" are voting Trump). Her crime that deserves her scarlet letter is that she had the temerity to be caught on video being rude and angry while protesting an antifeminist academic (warren farrell) that vaguely wrote about supporting incest and pedophila, among other possibly offensive things.

She apparently "is a vile human being" for not waning a male academic who seemingly spent time trying to understand who parent-child incest, and came away with a thought that it "can be a positive thing". Say what you want about the necessity of science, but some intellectuals ask questions that tear away at the very essential of liberalism: the freedom of every person to be free from ["hierarchical power structures"?] that affect their free will and self-determination, for example there was that highly controversial article by Laura Kipnis where she "questioned" (you know who else "just asks questions"? Glenn Beck) whether teacher-student relationships can be a good thing. As someone who hates the very idea of imbalanced authorities forcing their will over innocent people so that they can get a research or business opportunity,

I was disgusted by the mere support of such a pernicious tradition as "teachers taking advantage of nubile youths". DISGUSTING. I will not stand for the continuing harm of innocents for social or economic gain. I love free love, but teacher-student relationships are by definition not free.

Parent-child sexual relationships are not harmless, so I think the female protester that started this whole controversy is ethically allowed to do what she did, and use the insulting terms she did, and the people mocker her are ethically in the wrong. It doesn't matter if she isn't perfect or if she uses bad arguments, she has a right to be there and if you spend your time making videos mocking her and inviting the apathetic denizens of the internet to mock her, i.e harassment, which is not as bad as "death threats", which Dawkins helpfully tweets at us "NO NO NO!!!!". Thanks Richard, you support harassment but not death threats? You're such a useful leader

For caring about "free speech", Dawkins sure does support the harassment of women that dare speak truth to power! How dare that uppity female be so insulting, so crass! She used such bad logic to support her arguments! Clearly she "deserves all the mockery she can get", that's right boys go ahead and harass that random women, she was in public so it's fine if you tweet insults at her for doing something slightly stupid years ago! Free speech yet again only matters for rich powerful men, and women that complain about anything deserve to get burnt by countless jerks for daring to say a few words.
February 27, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterTwist
Take a good look at the latest example of SJW fascism.

Young conservative pundit Ben Shapiro was invited by the only conservative group in taxpayer-funded Cal State LA to give a talk titled, "When Diversity Becomes a Problem" (Spoiler: When it's diversity of race/sex/fundamental values, but stifles diverse thoughts.) The event was approved twice.
You can guess what happened next. The leftist professors, students, and agitators went apeshit, the pussy president cancelled the event for safety and suggested scheduling a diverse panel where Shapiro would be "balanced", i.e. shouted down, by leftists. No such "balance" needed when Communists and terrorist huggers like Angela Davis and Cornel West are invited.
The conservative group threatened to sue, the pussy president backed down, and Shapiro gave the talk anyway.
Now here's the real fascist part. One of the leftist professors, criminologist ROBERT WEIDE, wrote, "The best response to a micro-aggression is macro-aggression," and threatened "tough guy provocateurs" with violence ("I lift bro"). Pot calling kettle black.
On the day of the talk, protesters blocked the front door, assaulted a disabled liberal atheist who tried to get in; assaulted conservative Hispanics and called them "bitches"; and assaulted Breitbart reporter Adelle Nazarian. The campus police stood by and did fuck-all about it. During the talk, someone pulled a fire alarm, just as Big Red's gang of feminists once did to interrupt a meeting they deemed antifeminist. A guy speaking Hebrew on the phone with a friend heard someone say, "There he is talking that Jew shit. Y'all control everything." You hear that, liberal Jews? That's what these leftist fascists really think of you. And now they turned against the pussy president, and demand that HE step down for allowing the talk to take place.
Shapiro calls them "snowflakes" as well as fascists, but snowflakes don't assault people. A more fitting term is "crybullies."

But see, THIS is the kind of shit that created Trump. Trump taps into the public backlash against political correctness and Black Lives Matter and Islamic terrorism and rapist refugees and illegal immigrants shoved down people's throats by both parties.

So, that must mean that Ben Shapiro is voting Trump, right? Wrong. He supports Cruz, and just posted a video about Trump's lies about being conservative and successful. You can guess what happened next. The Nazis crawled out of the woodwork, and the top comments under that video are Nazi trolls telling Shapiro to gas himself or go back to Israel. So Ben gets shit from fascists on both sides.
February 29, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterMax
Hi admin,

The aim of eCareerBay is to provide quality services with ethics in an economical and friendly way to employers/recruiters and job-seekers.

April 19, 2016 | Unregistered CommentereCareerbay
It seems to me that Dan never really answered the fundamental question of whether or not Dawkins should have been disinivited. He addresses the idea that Dawkins should be held to a higher standard than others (which I'm not whether or not I agree with) and he addresses the fact that he personally disapproves of the content of Dawkins' tweet. But he doesn't really get at what the standard should be for his being disinvited. There seems to be an implication that anything crude or mean spirited, despite being satirical, should qualify for disinvitation, but that's a very general standard that seems inevitable to lead to some controversy. Not to mention, this tweet aside, wouldn't one argue that the opportunity to hear and see someone like Dawkins speak (considering his enormous contributions to society) far outweighs the fact that you may disagree with a tweet? Perhaps you could take that argument to an extreme and say the implication is that provided someone has had a meaningful contribution to society nothing they do after that should be considered relevant. While there is some merit to that, I wonder if universities or other non-academics interested in psychology and evolution are likely to start ignoring his books. I'm guessing not. Then what is the difference between saying, while we disagree with certain behaviors of a person, we still clearly think there is much merit to studying his views on psychology and evolution in the written form, versus saying while disagree with certain behaviors of a person, we still clearly think there is much merit to studying his views on psychology and evolution in the verbal form? I don't think there is a difference, and if we all intend to continue studying the works that he's published, I see no reason we wouldn't be willing to listen to his current thoughts.
June 3, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterTom
i like your idea of posting
<a href=> Fantasy Fest Images Pictures 2017 </a>

<a href=> New 2017 Fantasy Fest </a>s
September 19, 2017 | Unregistered Commenterrana asad
Very cordial of Julia to invite Dan onto her Podcast after their disagreement.

Definitely we can maintain civility while criticizing people, and abstain from personal attacks. To accuse someone else, in an entirely civil way, of prejudicing someone else provides us with one of the most powerful arguments against prejudice. Criticizing religious figures or religions qualifies as legitimate "punching up", whereas criticizing a minority of people does seem more like "punching down" and prejudicial discrimination. People need to respect the free speech rights of Others, including when Others criticize and satire the beliefs of those People.

Muhammad, a religious figure, and Islam, a religion, certainly differ from Muslims, people who simply participate in Islam to some degree or another.

The New York Post cover of President Barack and Michelle Obama simply satires conspiracy theories.

The actual video in question comes from "Sargon of Akkad" on YouTube. It only last about two minutes. I won't dare link to it. The video makes no indication that the feminist caricature actually refers to an actual person. The video lacks any racism or misogyny whatsoever. The video does point out the extraordinary irony that some Feminists have politically allied themselves with Islamic Fundamentalists. Thus, although crude, the video makes a quite valid point. Furthermore, Dawkins distanced himself from the video when he realized the personal attack.

Julia arrived at the correct conclusion. In fact, although Julia based her decision on having an uniform consistent standard, a decision to simply have a more liberal, tolerant policy of allowing endorsement of some forms of crude critique and satire also makes sense. Otherwise, the whole Skeptical Movement risks transforming into some type of nonintellectual politically correct pro censorship totalitarian ideology.

An enormous difference exits between the Women's Rights/Equality/Suffrage Movement and Feminism. A middle aged Utopian Socialist MALE named François Marie Charles Fourier actually started Feminism in order to promote Socialism. Neoclassical Liberalism promotes ideals such as female equality. Since Marxism, Communism, and Socialism have totally failed so miserably, promoters of these ideologies have sought to rebrand them with new ideologies such as Feminism.

Feminists have failed to criticize Fundamentalist Islamic abuse of women, such as FGM, "honor/shame killing", whipping, stoning, prepubescent marriage to elderly men, and general treatment of women as a form of property. Dan does have a point about Muslim Refugees in Cologne, Germany. However, feminists do not critique the abuse of women in 99% or 100% Muslim countries where Islamic Fundamentalists make up the majority of the population and control the government. In those countries, the women constitute a highly oppressed and abused minority, and yet the Feminists stay silent. This gives the obvious impression that Feminists only care about attacking Liberal Democracy, and do not actually care about women.
December 13, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJameson
I like this guy. He kind of reminds me of how I like to approach debates and discourse. some people can learn a lot from him. Max*coughcough*
April 3, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterErnesto

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.