5 ms·

The major difference there is that they actually identified the particular action that got him uninvited - and to Dawkins’ credit, (as far as I know) he deleted

The major difference there is that they actually identified the particular action that got him uninvited - and to Dawkins’ credit, (as far as I know) he deleted the offending tweets.

lake99 10y ago
As for whether that constitutes a major difference or not, it's a judgement call. And I don't agree with your judgement. Here are the full facts, in their own words: NECSS: in response to Dr. Dawkins’ approving re-tweet of a highly offensive video. That's it. Because it was offensive. And Dawkins' reponse after continued attacks against him on Twitter: Dawkins: Don't you think she should apologise for shrieking "Shut the fuck up" and "Fuckface" at anyone who tried to get a word in? I didn't do wrong to her. I posted, without comment, a video of her screaming vile abuse. I didn't apologise. I merely deleted, explaining that I did it out of concern for a person's life. Apparently, she reported getting threats of violence.
- thomasfoster96 10y ago
  It appears I didn't know everything about the Dawkins incident - disregard my comment.
- vor_ 10y ago
  The video was considered offensive because it advocated violence against women and had lines like "It's not rape if a Muslim does it."
  - lake99 10y ago
    > it advocated violence against women You have been misinformed. > had lines like "It's not rape if a Muslim does it." Parody.
    - pryce 10y ago
      Parody should presumably not be a get-out-of-jail free card that that allows people to rinse off and rekindle bloodstained racist tropes about people of different skin color and/or foreigners representing a sexual threat to women. If that were the case, we could simply take any sexist or racist thing we want to say, bake it into the premise of a joke with a parody outcome, and publish it without consequence.
      - lake99 10y ago
        > not be a get-out-of-jail free card I have no idea if you meant "jail" literally or figuratively. If you meant it literally, our differences are irreconcilable. If you meant it figuratively, no, Dawkins had to face the consequences of retweeting the video. He got disinvited by NECSS, and he was subjected to a ton of abuse and harrassment on Twitter. He was threatened with violence, which is not acceptable by law. As far as I know, he did not press charges against anyone for that, so they go free. > bloodstained racist tropes about people of different skin color and/or foreigners representing a sexual threat to women What racist? There was no racism there. Why would you assume that all Islamists would be of a different race and/or nationality than Dawkins. In any case, Muslims are not all the same race either. He has written plenty against Chrisitians and some British political parties too. > If that were the case ... publish it without consequence. Well, that was not the case. Dawkins had to face the consequences of his actions. NECSS had to face the consequences of their own actions.
        pryce 10y ago
        No, I did not mean literal jail, just as I was not referring to a literal card. I hate to disappoint you, but no one was arguing that Dawkins should go to jail; they were more interested in whether he did something wrong. Crucially, we're not talking about the consequences Dawkins suffered or did not suffer (a descriptive question); we're both talking about prescriptive questions: whether his posting that video should be considered wrong, and if so what consequences are appropriate and proportional. Your one word response to Dawkins' pretty troubling juxtaposition of Muslims and rape, "Parody." indicates to me that you view parody as something that either means nothing wrong occurred or could occur (ie parody should be excluded from ethical analysis), or that things in the category of parody should be immune from any societal rebuke. You're welcome to correct me if I am misreading you on that. My counterargument is propose a world in which people were able to make any racist or homophobic (or for example antisemitic) allegation and bake it into the premise of a parody. Should they be automatically immune from societal rebuke? If so, we open up floodgates; anyone who wishes to make racist or homophobic allegations will naturally just take the path of least resistance and sandwiched these in parodies and escape rebuke; it reduces more or less to society having no power to rebuke racist or homophobic remarks in general. Conversely, if being incorporated into a parody does not exclude an author from moral responsibility for his remarks, then your justification of "[it's a] Parody" is clearly insufficient. -- > What racist? There was no racism there If we are talking about the video made by Sye Ten Bruggencate and published by Sargon of Akkad, then because it is a video we do not need to make any tortuous suppositions about the ethnicity of Muslims in the parody, you can watch the video and see for yourself. It fits quite squarely into a long history of racist caricatures of foreign figures or in cartoons, and even more so into a long and vicious history of presenting foreign or non-white men as a threat to white women.

The major difference there is that they actually identified the particular action that got him uninvited - and to Dawkins’ credit, (as far as I know) he deleted the offending tweets.

lake99 10y ago

As for whether that constitutes a major difference or not, it's a judgement call. And I don't agree with your judgement. Here are the full facts, in their own words: NECSS: in response to Dr. Dawkins’ approving re-tweet of a highly offensive video. That's it. Because it was offensive. And Dawkins' reponse after continued attacks against him on Twitter: Dawkins: Don't you think she should apologise for shrieking "Shut the fuck up" and "Fuckface" at anyone who tried to get a word in? I didn't do wrong to her. I posted, without comment, a video of her screaming vile abuse. I didn't apologise. I merely deleted, explaining that I did it out of concern for a person's life. Apparently, she reported getting threats of violence.

thomasfoster96 10y ago
It appears I didn't know everything about the Dawkins incident - disregard my comment.
vor_ 10y ago
The video was considered offensive because it advocated violence against women and had lines like "It's not rape if a Muslim does it."
- lake99 10y ago
  > it advocated violence against women You have been misinformed. > had lines like "It's not rape if a Muslim does it." Parody.
  - pryce 10y ago
    Parody should presumably not be a get-out-of-jail free card that that allows people to rinse off and rekindle bloodstained racist tropes about people of different skin color and/or foreigners representing a sexual threat to women. If that were the case, we could simply take any sexist or racist thing we want to say, bake it into the premise of a joke with a parody outcome, and publish it without consequence.
    - lake99 10y ago
      > not be a get-out-of-jail free card I have no idea if you meant "jail" literally or figuratively. If you meant it literally, our differences are irreconcilable. If you meant it figuratively, no, Dawkins had to face the consequences of retweeting the video. He got disinvited by NECSS, and he was subjected to a ton of abuse and harrassment on Twitter. He was threatened with violence, which is not acceptable by law. As far as I know, he did not press charges against anyone for that, so they go free. > bloodstained racist tropes about people of different skin color and/or foreigners representing a sexual threat to women What racist? There was no racism there. Why would you assume that all Islamists would be of a different race and/or nationality than Dawkins. In any case, Muslims are not all the same race either. He has written plenty against Chrisitians and some British political parties too. > If that were the case ... publish it without consequence. Well, that was not the case. Dawkins had to face the consequences of his actions. NECSS had to face the consequences of their own actions.
      - pryce 10y ago
        No, I did not mean literal jail, just as I was not referring to a literal card. I hate to disappoint you, but no one was arguing that Dawkins should go to jail; they were more interested in whether he did something wrong. Crucially, we're not talking about the consequences Dawkins suffered or did not suffer (a descriptive question); we're both talking about prescriptive questions: whether his posting that video should be considered wrong, and if so what consequences are appropriate and proportional. Your one word response to Dawkins' pretty troubling juxtaposition of Muslims and rape, "Parody." indicates to me that you view parody as something that either means nothing wrong occurred or could occur (ie parody should be excluded from ethical analysis), or that things in the category of parody should be immune from any societal rebuke. You're welcome to correct me if I am misreading you on that. My counterargument is propose a world in which people were able to make any racist or homophobic (or for example antisemitic) allegation and bake it into the premise of a parody. Should they be automatically immune from societal rebuke? If so, we open up floodgates; anyone who wishes to make racist or homophobic allegations will naturally just take the path of least resistance and sandwiched these in parodies and escape rebuke; it reduces more or less to society having no power to rebuke racist or homophobic remarks in general. Conversely, if being incorporated into a parody does not exclude an author from moral responsibility for his remarks, then your justification of "[it's a] Parody" is clearly insufficient. -- > What racist? There was no racism there If we are talking about the video made by Sye Ten Bruggencate and published by Sargon of Akkad, then because it is a video we do not need to make any tortuous suppositions about the ethnicity of Muslims in the parody, you can watch the video and see for yourself. It fits quite squarely into a long history of racist caricatures of foreign figures or in cartoons, and even more so into a long and vicious history of presenting foreign or non-white men as a threat to white women.