Well written, Mr. Croft. Well-presented arguments. Clearly set forth, so that I can understand all of them. And reject them. For many of the reasons Pinker mentioned. But then, I suppose that Pinker has also now been consigned to Woke Hell.
Knight has it precisely right: "And like all groups of ideologues, they will eventually implode under the force of their own purity criteria."
Such a straw man. Nobody was arguing that Dawkins doesn't have free speech. They are saying it's absurd that an organization that values free inquiry, open debate of ideas, and rationality suddenly rejects all of these in favor of ideology and groupthink.
Critics are saying Dawkins is being "censored" and are describing it as an attack on "free speech". Your second and third sentences sound like straw men.
This is a very well made point. There are many instances of the "woke mob" and "censorship" and "cancelation" that I take issue with, and the "illiberal left" is a real phenomenon. But there are plenty of examples that are contrived, weakly argued defenses of bigotry. The argument against the AHA's decision is one of them. The text of AHA's statement (linked above) is important so I'm sharing it here:
April 19, 2021 News
Established in 1953, the Humanist of the Year Award is conferred annually by the American Humanist Association (AHA), recognizing the awardee as an exemplar of humanist values. Communication of scientific concepts to the public is an important aspect of advancing the cause of humanism. Richard Dawkins was honored in 1996 by the AHA as Humanist of the Year for his significant contributions in this area.
Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values. His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity.
Consequently, the AHA Board has concluded that Richard Dawkins is no longer deserving of being honored by the AHA, and has voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award.
Well written, Mr. Croft. Well-presented arguments. Clearly set forth, so that I can understand all of them. And reject them. For many of the reasons Pinker mentioned. But then, I suppose that Pinker has also now been consigned to Woke Hell.
Knight has it precisely right: "And like all groups of ideologues, they will eventually implode under the force of their own purity criteria."
But at least they'll be pure.
Such a straw man. Nobody was arguing that Dawkins doesn't have free speech. They are saying it's absurd that an organization that values free inquiry, open debate of ideas, and rationality suddenly rejects all of these in favor of ideology and groupthink.
Critics are saying Dawkins is being "censored" and are describing it as an attack on "free speech". Your second and third sentences sound like straw men.
This is a very well made point. There are many instances of the "woke mob" and "censorship" and "cancelation" that I take issue with, and the "illiberal left" is a real phenomenon. But there are plenty of examples that are contrived, weakly argued defenses of bigotry. The argument against the AHA's decision is one of them. The text of AHA's statement (linked above) is important so I'm sharing it here:
April 19, 2021 News
Established in 1953, the Humanist of the Year Award is conferred annually by the American Humanist Association (AHA), recognizing the awardee as an exemplar of humanist values. Communication of scientific concepts to the public is an important aspect of advancing the cause of humanism. Richard Dawkins was honored in 1996 by the AHA as Humanist of the Year for his significant contributions in this area.
Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values. His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity.
Consequently, the AHA Board has concluded that Richard Dawkins is no longer deserving of being honored by the AHA, and has voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award.
Here, here!!