morrowasted said:

I am just passively observing the Atheist schism begin

---

south park bit the nail on the head years ago--humans (and super intelligent otters) will always find something to fight over




UAL: No! Our answer to the Great Question is the only logical one. Our Science is great. Let us not forget the great Richard Dawkins who finally freed the world of religion long ago. Dawkins knew that logic and reason were the way of the future. But it wasn't until he met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn't enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you. Prepare all the troops! We will level the United Atheist Alliance to the ground!


UAA: You fools! This will be the end of us all!
AAA: Then accept our answer to the Great Question, and we will withdraw.
UAA: Your answer to the Great Question is illogical!
Cartman: What is the Great Question?
KIT-9: What atheists should call themselves.
UAL: Unified Atheist League is the most logical name.
UAA: >United Atheist Allianace makes more sense.
AAA: No! Allied Atheist Alliance! That way it has three A's! That is the logical choice!
UAL: So be it. We cannot agree; prepare to die.

Chuckfinely said:

topdog82 said:

I think that's unreasonable. Liberals need to get the stick out their ass and learn to accept the fact criticism is part of life. Bad ideas are allowed and need to be criticized. Even if u don't agree with him, I think anything (even things that offend me) should be allowed to be said outside of rape and death threats

In the name of comedy and ideological criticism especially

---

Right? I've known 10 year olds that can take criticism/opposing view points better then then far left people

I dont know what it is like in other countries, but the pusification of america and all these kids running around trying to be victims cause someone didnt recognize them for the special snowflake that they are is like one of our biggest problems.
What happens when all these kids grow up with this mentality that anyone who disagrees with them is a misogynist or a racist or fat phobic? I really hope I am able to gtfo from here before this shit hits a tipping point

---

shivas.wisdom said:

and if you're going to paint yourself as this calm rational sceptical intellect, you should probably stay away from insult cartoons to make your point

---

this times a million

Unless you are a comedian. In which case you should just make fun of people

shivas.wisdom said:

yea, pc culture has been taken to an extreme--reaching the point where constructive discussion is stifled--i recently got my self into a conversation about how, in north american society, it is very rare for a white person to encounter systemic racism; for a male to experience systemic sexism--despite agreeing with the sentiment, i disagreed with how it was put forward: "you cannot be sexist towards men, you cannot be racist towards white people"--my attempt to improve the message only got me laughed out of the conversation, as just another 'fuck boy'

but, consider the context of both the mission statement of NECSS (north east conference on science and scepticism) and the persona dawkins attempts to project, before you list this reaction along with the rest of pc culture

the idea behind NECSS (and all conferences of this nature) is to create an environment where anyone, from any background, can participate in a constructive conversation--the only thing being necessary to participate in this discussion is to leave emotion and dogma at the door--and so, even though the concept of limitless free speech has merit for the layperson, in an academic setting such as this conference, unnecessarily divisive language will immediately end the environment of reasoned discussion and cannot be tolerated--if you can't treat your opponent with respect, you still haven't got past emotional influence and shouldn't be participating in debates of this nature

and if you're going to paint yourself as this calm rational sceptical intellect, you should probably stay away from insult cartoons to make your point

---

I agree totally that the way dawkins said what he said has no place in an intellectual discussion, and would totally agree with his removal if I thought that was why he was removed, but I fear he was removed because of the topic and the fear that he may piss off too many white knights and green haired lesbians rather then because he said it in an inflammatory and snooty manner

Although I may be approaching this emotionally rather then intellectually. I have had to deal with way too much pc bullshit, and have seen too many young men's lives either ruined or come damn near close to ruined because of the insanity that is this new feminism; because of that I fear I am unable to be totally objective when it comes to the pc police and am liable to jump on the side of anyone who is even slightly politically incorrect

shivas.wisdom said:

yea, pc culture has been taken to an extreme--reaching the point where constructive discussion is stifled--i recently got my self into a conversation about how, in north american society, it is very rare for a white person to encounter systemic racism; for a male to experience systemic sexism--despite agreeing with the sentiment, i disagreed with how it was put forward: "you cannot be sexist towards men, you cannot be racist towards white people"--my attempt to improve the message only got me laughed out of the conversation, as just another 'fuck boy'

---

qman said:

Here's the video the feminists are all butthurt about.

---

As additional context, here is the offending tweet:



And some other samples from his twitter I encountered while digging for it:

topdog82 said:

He specified that he was a feminist and he was referring to specific minority of ultra-femnists

---

qman said:

What kind of person were you engaging in a conversation with?  They must have been quite young.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

@sweetleafsamadhi, while the tweet is not explicitly offensive, it does appear to be needlessly attempting to stir up controversy--which is cancer to reasoned discussion

---

shivas.wisdom said:

...
@sweetleafsamadhi, while the tweet is not explicitly offensive, it does appear to be needlessly attempting to stir up controversy--which is cancer to reasoned discussion

it wasn't made in an attempt to further the discussion of islam, feminism, or any of the surrounding issues, but to rile up the pernicious feminists

you expect this kinda shit from howard stern types,  but it has no place in a proper debate and i'm not surprised an attitude like his would lead to such multidisciplinary conferences as the NECSS to blacklist him

---

Do not consider Twitter to be a place for proper debate to begin with. 

But people have been put on trial for content posted on Twitter, so who knows.

Quote:

The potentially precedent-setting case is believed to the first time a Canadian court has dealt with harassment on the social media network. Experts and civil rights lawyers said in the lead-up to Friday’s verdict that it was a major test of freedom of expression in Canada and the limits of free speech.

---

SweetLeafSamadhi said:

Quote:

The potentially precedent-setting case is believed to the first time a Canadian court has dealt with harassment on the social media network. Experts and civil rights lawyers said in the lead-up to Friday’s verdict that it was a major test of freedom of expression in Canada and the limits of free speech.

---

---

Prisoner#1 said:

SweetLeafSamadhi said:

Quote:

The potentially precedent-setting case is believed to the first time a Canadian court has dealt with harassment on the social media network. Experts and civil rights lawyers said in the lead-up to Friday’s verdict that it was a major test of freedom of expression in Canada and the limits of free speech.

---

---

free speech in canada?

it's just a catch phrase

---

Despite the fact that he was ultimately found not guilty
his being banned from legally using online communication for several years during the trial
along with the loss of his job
really reinforces this sentiment.

shivas.wisdom said:

in my opinion, any value his criticisms may hold becomes lost in the way he presents them

his overriding snarkiness and holier-than-thou attitude is not how you successfully debate

you gotta make the horse think it drank the water on its own volition--the more you push and cajole, the more it will balk

---

zappaisgod said:

shivas.wisdom said:

in my opinion, any value his criticisms may hold becomes lost in the way he presents them

his overriding snarkiness and holier-than-thou attitude is not how you successfully debate

you gotta make the horse think it drank the water on its own volition--the more you push and cajole, the more it will balk

---

Jon Stewart made quite a nice living from just that.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

the key difference being john stewart never played himself off as being, first and foremost, a comedian--whereas richard dawkins plays himself up as an ubiased academic

---