Richard Dawkins "stripped of humanist of the year" award.

[Politesse]

“The highest forms of understanding we can achieve are laughter and human compassion.”
― Richard P. Feynman

“We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on.”
― Richard P. Feynman

“No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literacy or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race.”
― Richard P. Feynman

Sorry, if you're going to use one of my favorite Humanists to preposterously support anti-Humanist values, I'm going to reach into my own quote notebook! Feynman, for all of his faults, was no lover of bigotry in any form. His position was always that whatever expanded human potential was a good thing, whatever limited it was not.

Dawkins does not represent anti-humanist values. That is preposterous. What he attacked in that Tweet was the anti-intellectualism of the woke position.

Feynman was above all a scientist. You'd be foolish if you though any of those quotes can be used against Dawkins today. Stripping Dawkins from the award is an attack on science, ie an attack on that which Feynman held as the most sacred.

The man wrote a book called, "the pleasure of finding things out". Everything in that book is a defence of Dawkins and an attack on the anti-intellectual woke scum attacking him today.

It has to be ok to discuss things. No matter of whose feelings get hurt. If you can't allow other people to freely explore where their intellectual curiousity takes them, then you are an enemy of Feymans ideals.

Feynman is one of my biggest heroes. If you challenge me to a Feynman quote battle, I promise, you I will win.

These woke idiots aren't the friend of transexuals. They are the enemies of reason. Of course any Humanist organization worth their salt should be on Dawkins side here.

Dawkins is not being stripped of his title for his scientific research, what little he has done, but for his regressive social activism, much of which has been in direct opposition to modern discoveries concerning sex and gender expression.

 

[laughing dog]

An atheist group punishing someone for free thought. Wokeness destroys everything.

But since everything is genetically determined, it is only natural. So what is your beef?

 

[Metaphor]

Steven Pinker (Humanist of the Year 2006) and Rebecca Goldstein (Humanist of the Year 2011) sent an open letter to AHA protesting the board's decision about Dawkins. (It's worth noting that the Woke tried to cancel Pinker last year, so I think this officially makes him 'alt-right').


Steven Pinker (Humanist of the Year 2006) and Rebecca Goldstein (Humanist of the Year 2011) protest AHA withdrawal of Humanist of the Year award to Richard Dawkins in open letter : humanism (reddit.com)

 

[Trausti]

An atheist group punishing someone for free thought. Wokeness destroys everything.

But since everything is genetically determined, it is only natural. So what is your beef?

You don't see the irony of an atheist organization excommunicating a member for heresy? Maybe you don't. You've got Marshall Applewhite levels of Wokeness.

 

[none]

An atheist group punishing someone for free thought. Wokeness destroys everything.

But since everything is genetically determined, it is only natural. So what is your beef?

You don't see the irony of an atheist organization excommunicating a member for heresy? Maybe you don't. You've got Marshall Applewhite levels of Wokeness.

much worse than say YouTube restricting access?

 

[Trausti]

You don't see the irony of an atheist organization excommunicating a member for heresy? Maybe you don't. You've got Marshall Applewhite levels of Wokeness.

much worse than say YouTube restricting access?

If you can't figure out how to log into YouTube, then, well, I dunno know how to help you.

 

[none]

You don't see the irony of an atheist organization excommunicating a member for heresy? Maybe you don't. You've got Marshall Applewhite levels of Wokeness.

much worse than say YouTube restricting access?

If you can't figure out how to log into YouTube, then, well, I dunno know how to help you.

..

 

[DrZoidberg]

“The highest forms of understanding we can achieve are laughter and human compassion.”
― Richard P. Feynman

“We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on.”
― Richard P. Feynman

“No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literacy or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race.”
― Richard P. Feynman

Sorry, if you're going to use one of my favorite Humanists to preposterously support anti-Humanist values, I'm going to reach into my own quote notebook! Feynman, for all of his faults, was no lover of bigotry in any form. His position was always that whatever expanded human potential was a good thing, whatever limited it was not.

Dawkins does not represent anti-humanist values. That is preposterous. What he attacked in that Tweet was the anti-intellectualism of the woke position.

Feynman was above all a scientist. You'd be foolish if you though any of those quotes can be used against Dawkins today. Stripping Dawkins from the award is an attack on science, ie an attack on that which Feynman held as the most sacred.

The man wrote a book called, "the pleasure of finding things out". Everything in that book is a defence of Dawkins and an attack on the anti-intellectual woke scum attacking him today.

It has to be ok to discuss things. No matter of whose feelings get hurt. If you can't allow other people to freely explore where their intellectual curiousity takes them, then you are an enemy of Feymans ideals.

Feynman is one of my biggest heroes. If you challenge me to a Feynman quote battle, I promise, you I will win.

These woke idiots aren't the friend of transexuals. They are the enemies of reason. Of course any Humanist organization worth their salt should be on Dawkins side here.

Dawkins is not being stripped of his title for his scientific research, what little he has done, but for his regressive social activism, much of which has been in direct opposition to modern discoveries concerning sex and gender expression.

Dawkins is a left leaning progressive liberal. I think it's absurd to label what he's done and said as "regressive social activism". If you think his views rule him out as a progressive you're going to find yourself very lonely on the left.

If you have a problem with people on the left expressing themselves freely in case someone gets offended, then the enemy of Liberal values is, you. Not Dawkins.

The fact that he speaks his mind regardless of if it'll rub people the wrong way makes him, in today's political climate, a true hero.

And finally, Humanism isn't fundamentaly liberal. Even if, he was a Conservative he'd still deserve the medal. Humanism is about letting people seek bliss on their own terms. Conservatives also want that, but though different means.

https://americanhumanist.org/about/

edit:

Also, Dawkins is a biologist. Sex and gender expression falls within his primary field of expertise. A field where he's one of the world's leading experts. I understand I'm comitting the appeal to authority fallacy here, but don't you think it's preposterously arrogant of you to try to school him on how genders work? Even queer theorists acknowledge that in some senses gender is not fluid, but defined by biology. It depends what we're discussing. Whether or not you're defined as a man if you have a penis, depends upon what type of conversation we are having. I interpret what Dawkins has been talking about is this. Nothing else.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article...fell-victim-to-the-transgender-thought-police

I also see this development as dangerous for the progressive left. If we condemn Dawkins now, we're no better than the Maoists in the Cultural Revolution. If we can't see how this is analogues then fuck atheism. Then we need to go back to religion, as the less crazy of the two options.

 

[none]

Dawkins is not being stripped of his title for his scientific research, what little he has done, but for his regressive social activism, much of which has been in direct opposition to modern discoveries concerning sex and gender expression.

Dawkins is a left leaning progressive liberal. I think it's absurd to label what he's done and said as "regressive social activism". If you think his views rule him out as a progressive you're going to find yourself very lonely on the left.

If you have a problem with people on the left expressing themselves freely in case someone gets offended, then the enemy of Liberal values is, you. Not Dawkins.

The fact that he speaks his mind regardless of if it'll rub people the wrong way makes him, in today's political climate, a true hero.

And finally, Humanism isn't fundamentaly liberal. Even if, he was a Conservative he'd still deserve the medal. Humanism is about letting people seek bliss on their own terms. Conservatives also want that, but though different means.

https://americanhumanist.org/about/

...Richard Dawkins is the catalyst?

 

[Bomb#20]

What gender and racial discrimination did Dawkins champion?

Did Joe McCarthy care whether the people he went after really were communists?

 

[DrZoidberg]

What gender and racial discrimination did Dawkins champion?

Did Joe McCarthy care whether the people he went after really were communists?

But we've already grabbed our pitchforks, built the bonfire and fetched our stakes. Do you want all that work to go to waste?

 

[southernhybrid]

The AHA takes an intersectional view of social justice issues, recognizing that working to liberate all marginalized communities is the best way to lift the prospects of any one group. Humanism motivates us to act on a moral imperative to transform systems of oppression because they are incompatible with the aspirations of humanism.

Regardless of race, ethnicity, economic status, ability, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious beliefs or nonbelief, or citizenship, all individuals have universal human rights that must be respected and protected. Achieving global standards for human rights and international adherence to institutions such as the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights facilitate enforcing individuals’ rights the world over.

That’s why the AHA is committed to addressing the various ways entire groups of people are dehumanized and targeted for social, economic, and political deprivations. This means disrupting various oppressive systems like cis-heteronormativity, white supremacy, and patriarchy through every dimension of society.

That's from the link provided by another poster.

Not that I really care very much about this issue, although for years, I've thought of Dawkins as a bit of a self righteous, prick, it could be that whatever it is that he said in regards to transgendered folks didn't match up with the ideals of the AHA. Person of the year awards are stupid imo, so maybe it would be better if the AHA ended the practice of choosing one person as Humanist of the year. That would end such silly discussions as well as the AHA's need to reconsider who they chose to receive the honor.

 

[bigfield]

It's ironic though. His claim is that challenging the woke trans narrative leads to being vilified, leads to him being vilified, proving his point.

Well done American Humanist Organization playing right into the hands of truly transphobic and bigoted conservatives.

Dawkins is obviously not transphobic. This is so stupid. If he's not a hero of the humanist cause, nobody is.

He compared trans people to Rachel Dolezal. For one thing, it's pretty insulting to draw that comparison in the first place. But more significantly, Dawkins is ignoring the fact that psychologists and neuroscientists have been studying trans people for decades. Transsexuality is a established medical condition, not a lifestyle choice.

He may not be transphobic, but he did write something pretty fucking silly. Especially silly for a scientist who expounds the virtue of evidence-based reasoning.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's ironic though. His claim is that challenging the woke trans narrative leads to being vilified, leads to him being vilified, proving his point.

Well done American Humanist Organization playing right into the hands of truly transphobic and bigoted conservatives.

Dawkins is obviously not transphobic. This is so stupid. If he's not a hero of the humanist cause, nobody is.

He compared trans people to Rachel Dolezal. For one thing, it's pretty insulting to draw that comparison in the first place. But more significantly, Dawkins is ignoring the fact that psychologists and neuroscientists have been studying trans people for decades. Transsexuality is a established medical condition, not a lifestyle choice.

He may not be transphobic, but he did write something pretty fucking silly. Especially silly for a scientist who expounds the virtue of evidence-based reasoning.

Yes, exactly. He compared them. Is that wrong? What is the difference between identifying as another race and identifying as another gender? Everybody thinks there are differences, but what are they? At what point does gender dysphoria swerve into the same territory as racial dysphoria? Why aren't they the same thing? These are things that are genuinely interesting to discuss. We do it all the time on this forum. What makes us so special, that we get away with it, and Dawkins doesn't?

The problem with the woke position is that it is incoherent. On one hand gender identity is a choice and whatever it is we chose should be respected. On the other hand it is biology, not a choice. On one hand men and women are exactly the same and our behaviour is the result of the patriarchy and how we're socialised differently. Except for transexuals, their wrong gender is uniquely innate. Completely ignoring all the research showing that transexuals before and after hormone treatment often get different behaviours.

No, shit this annoys biologists. The wokes don't know which foot to stand on, and in spite of having an incoherent position keep attacking anybody who doesn't agree with them.

I don't think it's silly at all. For the wokes it seems as if we're done discussing this topic and now it's simply a question of enlightening the ignorant plebs. Yes, psychologists and neuroscientists have studied it for decades. But this is still far from settled.

It's rather, the more we study gender the more complicated and less obvious it becomes. I think it's entirely appropriate for a biologist to weigh in on this.

 

[Politesse]

Also, Dawkins is a biologist. Sex and gender expression falls within his primary field of expertise. A field where he's one of the world's leading experts. I understand I'm comitting the appeal to authority fallacy here, but don't you think it's preposterously arrogant of you to try to school him on how genders work? Even queer theorists acknowledge that in some senses gender is not fluid, but defined by biology. It depends what we're discussing. Whether or not you're defined as a man if you have a penis, depends upon what type of conversation we are having. I interpret what Dawkins has been talking about is this. Nothing else.

There's no "science" involved. He also isn't being criticized for arguing that "gender is not fluid" (although this is a scientifically inaccurate statement) the problem comes from his bigoted attacks on women and transgendered people, not his scientific claims such as they are. Did any of you even read the statement you're decrying? They are clear and straightforward about why the honor is being stripped from him, and no scientific claims, right or wrong, are mentioned. Only his social activism. As is right. It's not their business to decide what science does or does not say, but encouraging positive, prosocial public behavior, freed from the confines of religious medievalism, is the entire raison d'etre of their organization.

And why you think he's a "leading expert" in anything, let alone the biology of sex, is beyond me. He's a great popular writer and a skilled religious polemicist, but that's all he is; a classic "public intellectual". He has never done all that much actual research in any field, and the academic work he did accomplish was not in the field of human sexuality. Indeed, strict gender essentialism makes very little sense if you accept his own most famous argument that individual genes, rather than organic function, should be seen as the primary objects and drivers of natural selection. Such a view is more congruent with the modern understanding of sexual expression as the result of a complex tangle of only partially related genetic and hormonal factors, than it is with Victorian-era pre-genetic-science strict sex dualism. I think he's going off the deep end here, unable to resolve his scientific knowledge with the antiquated social rules he was raised to follow. He might understand his own mind better, if he'd ever seriously studied the social sciences.

 

[Metaphor]

There's no "science" involved. He also isn't being criticized for arguing that "gender is not fluid" (although this is a scientifically inaccurate statement) the problem comes from his bigoted attacks on women and transgendered people,

What bigoted attacks?

 

[J842P]

It's ironic though. His claim is that challenging the woke trans narrative leads to being vilified, leads to him being vilified, proving his point.

Well done American Humanist Organization playing right into the hands of truly transphobic and bigoted conservatives.

Dawkins is obviously not transphobic. This is so stupid. If he's not a hero of the humanist cause, nobody is.

He compared trans people to Rachel Dolezal. For one thing, it's pretty insulting to draw that comparison in the first place. But more significantly, Dawkins is ignoring the fact that psychologists and neuroscientists have been studying trans people for decades. Transsexuality is a established medical condition, not a lifestyle choice.

He may not be transphobic, but he did write something pretty fucking silly. Especially silly for a scientist who expounds the virtue of evidence-based reasoning.

Found the truscum.

Transexual is a transmedicalist term. Transmedicalism is transphobia.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's ironic though. His claim is that challenging the woke trans narrative leads to being vilified, leads to him being vilified, proving his point.

Well done American Humanist Organization playing right into the hands of truly transphobic and bigoted conservatives.

Dawkins is obviously not transphobic. This is so stupid. If he's not a hero of the humanist cause, nobody is.

He compared trans people to Rachel Dolezal. For one thing, it's pretty insulting to draw that comparison in the first place. But more significantly, Dawkins is ignoring the fact that psychologists and neuroscientists have been studying trans people for decades. Transsexuality is a established medical condition, not a lifestyle choice.

He may not be transphobic, but he did write something pretty fucking silly. Especially silly for a scientist who expounds the virtue of evidence-based reasoning.

Found the truscum.

Transexual is a transmedicalist term. Transmedicalism is transphobia.

Oh, stop it. No, it's not.

The explosion of offensive terms to be avoided by the kings and queens of woke IS exclusionary. It's a method by which to identity the ignorant unwashed peasants we (ie the good guys) should look down on and convert to the enlightened side.

Don't fall into their trap.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Also, Dawkins is a biologist. Sex and gender expression falls within his primary field of expertise. A field where he's one of the world's leading experts. I understand I'm comitting the appeal to authority fallacy here, but don't you think it's preposterously arrogant of you to try to school him on how genders work? Even queer theorists acknowledge that in some senses gender is not fluid, but defined by biology. It depends what we're discussing. Whether or not you're defined as a man if you have a penis, depends upon what type of conversation we are having. I interpret what Dawkins has been talking about is this. Nothing else.

There's no "science" involved. He also isn't being criticized for arguing that "gender is not fluid" (although this is a scientifically inaccurate statement) the problem comes from his bigoted attacks on women and transgendered people, not his scientific claims such as they are. Did any of you even read the statement you're decrying? They are clear and straightforward about why the honor is being stripped from him, and no scientific claims, right or wrong, are mentioned. Only his social activism. As is right. It's not their business to decide what science does or does not say, but encouraging positive, prosocial public behavior, freed from the confines of religious medievalism, is the entire raison d'etre of their organization.

And why you think he's a "leading expert" in anything, let alone the biology of sex, is beyond me. He's a great popular writer and a skilled religious polemicist, but that's all he is; a classic "public intellectual". He has never done all that much actual research in any field, and the academic work he did accomplish was not in the field of human sexuality. Indeed, strict gender essentialism makes very little sense if you accept his own most famous argument that individual genes, rather than organic function, should be seen as the primary objects and drivers of natural selection. Such a view is more congruent with the modern understanding of sexual expression as the result of a complex tangle of only partially related genetic and hormonal factors, than it is with Victorian-era pre-genetic-science strict sex dualism. I think he's going off the deep end here, unable to resolve his scientific knowledge with the antiquated social rules he was raised to follow. He might understand his own mind better, if he'd ever seriously studied the social sciences.

What exactly is your problem with Dawkins social activism? If your bar for what is bigoted is that low, then who isn't bigoted? I don't think he's said anything remotely offensive.

The question of what transexualism is is far from settled by researchers. Our understanding of the human brain is still on a pretty basic level. Don't get caught up in the nonsense the woke ideologues spew on this. It's damn far from settled. Even within the trans community. If we at this point put it beyond debate then we're just being anti-intellectual.

 

[Bomb#20]

He compared trans people to Rachel Dolezal. For one thing, it's pretty insulting to draw that comparison in the first place. But more significantly, Dawkins is ignoring the fact that psychologists and neuroscientists have been studying trans people for decades. Transsexuality is a established medical condition, not a lifestyle choice.

And you have evidence that Rachel Dolezal isn't the way she is because of a medical condition? Perhaps if psychologists and neuroscientists study her for decades it will even become established...

The reason the comparison is insulting is because the prevailing self-appointed authorities on what is and isn't insulting do not respect Rachel Dolezal.