|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 22, 2021 7:27:52 GMT
Never liked Richard Dawkins because I have never seen him say something that impresses me. In this age almost every Tom Dick and Harry can get attention by saying things against feelings of any specific group. Another one I never though of highly was Christopher Hitchens. A total scumbag.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 22, 2021 9:16:46 GMT
You are defining left wing as it was defined by Rush Limbaugh for decades. Left and Right are tribalistic games played by the wealthy to manipulate the working and middle classes into fighting each other But if your argument is that the wealthy apply divide and conquer tactics against the working and middle class then you're pretty much taking a left wing stance yourself - that the bourgeoisie carries out class warfare against the lower classes. The USA was indeed founded on the basis of classical liberalism - a system that has led to mass inequality and exploitation. Freedom in a world of extreme inequality means considerably more freedom for some than others. The fact that the founding fathers went on about liberty while owning actual slaves tells you all you need to know. This article brings up some of the problems with the comparison: www.theweek.co.uk/64012/rachel-dolezal-what-does-it-mean-to-be-transracial I understand Dolezal also made up details about her parents in order to pass as black.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Apr 22, 2021 17:41:07 GMT
UPDATE In the last week, many prominent or once prominent atheists and skeptics have weighed in against the American Humanist Association decision to withdraw their Human Of The Year Award from Richard Dawkins. It is disappointing that many – if not all – fall back on right-wing created words and slogans that mock or devalue human rights efforts, e.g. woke, political correctness, and virtue signaling. I especially found this sentiment from Stephen Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein (themselves former Humanist Of The Year) to be very misguided. Now, it would still be completely appropriate for those of you who objected to the substance of his tweets to criticize them in The Humanist or other forums, explaining the nature of their objections. But to seek to punish, dishonor, or humiliate a writer rather than engage with his words is a betrayal of humanism. Sure, everything is up for debate unless it’s your life being debated. Read the tweets and statements here. |
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 22, 2021 22:57:31 GMT
You are defining left wing as it was defined by Rush Limbaugh for decades. Left and Right are tribalistic games played by the wealthy to manipulate the working and middle classes into fighting each other But if your argument is that the wealthy apply divide and conquer tactics against the working and middle class then you're pretty much taking a left wing stance yourself - that the bourgeoisie carries out class warfare against the lower classes. The USA was indeed founded on the basis of classical liberalism - a system that has led to mass inequality and exploitation. Freedom in a world of extreme inequality means considerably more freedom for some than others. The fact that the founding fathers went on about liberty while owning actual slaves tells you all you need to know. This article brings up some of the problems with the comparison: www.theweek.co.uk/64012/rachel-dolezal-what-does-it-mean-to-be-transracial I understand Dolezal also made up details about her parents in order to pass as black. There is no problem with the comparison and that doesn't answer my question. It's a simple question with a simple answer. Whether she lied is irrelevant. As mentioned previously, left wing isn't a philosophy. I don't believe the wealthy manipulate the working and middle classes to oppose the "right wing," I believe it because we can see it happening. Both "wings" are being manipulated into fighting, much as they were catfished into literally fighting over statues by Russians. Everything is being politicized to the point of absurdity, even masks and vaccines, all to divide and tell people where to look, so they don't see what they are not supposed to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Apr 23, 2021 4:41:20 GMT
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 23, 2021 8:43:09 GMT
There is no problem with the comparison and that doesn't answer my question. It's a simple question with a simple answer. Whether she lied is irrelevant. I don't think it's irrelevant. She claimed her father was black and her mother and white stepfather used to beat her because she was black - her white "stepfather" turned out to be her actual father and pictures of her as a child show she looked white so why would her parents beat her for being black? She was making up a story of racial oppression and even compared her treatment to that of black slaves by white masters. It is this false martyrdom that people take exception to with Dolezal which is not a relevant factor for transgender people who are discriminated against simply for being transgender. I'm not sure we really disagree here except as regards terminology. My own view is that the wealthy have two main approaches for protecting their wealth and power. One side wants to throw a few breadcrumbs to the people to keep them sweet and offer some protection and support to the most marginalised groups (in the US, this side is represented by the Democrats). The other wants to appeal to the more privileged elements of the working class by saying those below them want to take that privilege off them (in the US, this side is represented by the Republicans). The two sides however don't differ greatly in terms of economic and foreign policy - these questions are generally framed as settled or at least less important and those who feel they deserve greater focus are given minimal airtime and dismissed as loonies or traitors. So I agree with you that the wealthy keep us squabbling over the less important stuff (which is not to say this stuff is unimportant) while they carry on serving their own interests. But this is essentially a Marxist analysis - that the true conflict is a class one and it is false consciousness that causes us to identify with the ideologies of the ruling class rather than uniting with the rest of the working class against them. And of course Marxism is generally considered pretty strongly "left wing".
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 23, 2021 9:37:03 GMT
These things aren't uniform across Islam though - you don't hear of Bosnians stoning women for instance. They seem to manifest most strongly in countries where authoritarian governments are kept in power by the US military (eg Saudi Arabia) or where people have thrown their lot in with groups that offer an identity at odds with that of Western powers who attack them (eg Iran or ISIS). Even in these instances there are devout Muslims who oppose this behaviour of course. Having said that, it would be a mistake to say the tenets of Islam don't have some impact. And there are other factors at play beyond Islam or imperialism. But the idea that you can just educate people out of Islam and then all their violence will stop is naive at best and disingenuous at worst. If it's just semantics, why make the point at all? Even if Dawkins wasn't being transphobic, he must have been aware what he was saying would be used as ammunition by genuine transphobes (which it was).Because he might disagree with the idea the people who think trans women are not "literally women" should be vilified. Or he was simply start a discussion. Dawkins by his own admission would call a trans woman a "woman". The man starred in a documentary about religion called "The root of all evil?". We already know what he thinks about religion but back then when he mostly was shitting on Christianity, no one cared except Christians. Atheists, Anti-Theists and the left in general didn't care. He starts shitting on Islam and suddenly he is an Islamophobe as if Islam is some special religion that needs protection because of this misconception that criticizing Islam is somehow bigoted when it's not. And the reason he doesn't happens in Bosnia is because Bosnia is a secular state. I'm not saying that violence will end if any religion disappears. I'm saying it's perfectly fine to criticize religion and to think that some religions are worse than others. Dawkins is not Islamophobe if he thinks one particular religion (Islam) is worse than others.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 23, 2021 11:08:58 GMT
Because he might disagree with the idea the people who think trans women are not "literally women" should be vilified. That's a transphobic stance though. Consider that sentiment applied elsewhere - "I don't call black people the N word but those that do shouldn't be vilified" I can't speak for the rest of the Left but I was never a fan of his attacks on Christians either. Islam isn't special but Muslims are one of the most stigmatised groups - Christians have nowhere near as much prejudice directed at them nor have they suffered as much from imperialism. Dawkins isn't helping matters by saying Islam is super evil as opposed to just regular evil like other religions. In that case, the problem is lack of secularisation rather than Islam per se. It's also true that many of these oppressive Islamic states are either supported by US imperialism or a reaction against it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 23, 2021 11:31:53 GMT
Because he might disagree with the idea the people who think trans women are not "literally women" should be vilified. That's a transphobic stance though. Consider that sentiment applied elsewhere - "I don't call black people the N word but those that do shouldn't be vilified" I can't speak for the rest of the Left but I was never a fan of his attacks on Christians either. Islam isn't special but Muslims are one of the most stigmatised groups - Christians have nowhere near as much prejudice directed at them nor have they suffered as much from imperialism. Dawkins isn't helping matters by saying Islam is super evil as opposed to just regular evil like other religions. In that case, the problem is lack of secularisation rather than Islam per se. It's also true that many of these oppressive Islamic states are either supported by US imperialism or a reaction against it. Not the same as the "n word" is derogatory. Unless a man is using slurs against trans people it's not really the same thing as thinking a trans women is not literally a woman. Did you think he was "Christophobe" however?
Well Christians haven't suffered as much as result of imperialism but pretty much every land in North Africa and the Middle East happened to be Christian and now it's Muslim land. Muslims after all did quite their fair share of Imperialism right down to the 20th century with the Ottoman Empire
I agree the lack of secularization is the problem but let's face it, all those secular dictators in the Middle East from Assad, Saddam and others that have been overthrown havent' exactly being replace by secular democracies. Very often the people that fought against them were Islamists who want to impose Islamic law.
Look at the support for sharia law in countries with a significant Muslim population particularly in Africa and the Middle East.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 23, 2021 14:05:12 GMT
Not the same as the "n word" is derogatory. Unless a man is using slurs against trans people it's not really the same thing as thinking a trans women is not literally a woman. Saying a transwoman is not a real woman is incredibly insulting to her. Dawkins seems to acknowledge this by saying he doesn't do so himself so why is he defending those that do? No, because he wasn't saying Christianity was a supremely evil religion, nor was he piling on a marginalised group. But present day Christians are not impacted by imperialism to the extent present-day Muslims are and that's the key point here. I'm not saying that Muslims haven't engaged in conquest in the past or that they're better than non-Muslims or anything like that. Countries destabilised by western powers, where people gravitate to the best organised, most overtly anti-western groups which then attempt to fill that vaccuum. Sometimes the West even supports them in that effort (eg helping the Mujahideen overthrow the DRA in Afghanistan). The two global regions with the most reason to hate the west are drawn to an anti-western philosophy - hardly surprising.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 23, 2021 17:52:33 GMT
There is no problem with the comparison and that doesn't answer my question. It's a simple question with a simple answer. Whether she lied is irrelevant. I don't think it's irrelevant. Still dodging my question. I'll write this one off as not going to be answered. The twits won't answer it either, they hide behind accusations of transphobia and a wall of faux anger to hide their hypocrisy. Leave it to Dawkins to unravel yet another religion with a single question, lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Apr 28, 2021 20:39:14 GMT
Stripping someone of an award is ridiculous, unless they cheated to get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Apr 28, 2021 20:47:18 GMT
That's a transphobic stance though. Consider that sentiment applied elsewhere - "I don't call black people the N word but those that do shouldn't be vilified" I can't speak for the rest of the Left but I was never a fan of his attacks on Christians either. Islam isn't special but Muslims are one of the most stigmatised groups - Christians have nowhere near as much prejudice directed at them nor have they suffered as much from imperialism. Dawkins isn't helping matters by saying Islam is super evil as opposed to just regular evil like other religions. In that case, the problem is lack of secularisation rather than Islam per se. It's also true that many of these oppressive Islamic states are either supported by US imperialism or a reaction against it. Not the same as the "n word" is derogatory. Unless a man is using slurs against trans people it's not really the same thing as thinking a trans women is not literally a woman. Did you think he was "Christophobe" however?
Well Christians haven't suffered as much as result of imperialism but pretty much every land in North Africa and the Middle East happened to be Christian and now it's Muslim land. Muslims after all did quite their fair share of Imperialism right down to the 20th century with the Ottoman Empire
I agree the lack of secularization is the problem but let's face it, all those secular dictators in the Middle East from Assad, Saddam and others that have been overthrown havent' exactly being replace by secular democracies. Very often the people that fought against them were Islamists who want to impose Islamic law.
Look at the support for sharia law in countries with a significant Muslim population particularly in Africa and the Middle East.
A trans woman is not literally a woman imo. I'm sorry if this offends trans people, but it is the way I see it. That doesn't mean I won't refer to them however they want me to refer to them though, depending on how they go about it. A woman the way I define it is someone who is a biological woman. I don't care about gender, as gender is just a mind state. There has also been the question raised as how do they know what it feels like to be a "woman" if they aren't biological women? Forever women and men have been defined largely by what sex they were born, not by how they feel about it. That doesn't make me a bigot either. I think trans people should get all the same rights as other people and they are just as human obviously.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Apr 28, 2021 20:58:56 GMT
Not the same as the "n word" is derogatory. Unless a man is using slurs against trans people it's not really the same thing as thinking a trans women is not literally a woman. Saying a transwoman is not a real woman is incredibly insulting to her. Dawkins seems to acknowledge this by saying he doesn't do so himself so why is he defending those that do? I'll usually refer to them as whatever they want to be referred to as, but that is separate from what I think of the issue in my mind.
I have read a lot of the studies on this too, so I know sex and gender are 2 different things. One is a fact and the other is an abstraction. It is about how they feel about the sex they were born.Also, how the hell does a person born a certain sex know what it feels like to be in the mind of someone born the opposite sex? This is a question even trans people have brought up. They are conforming to the idea of what they think the opposite sex feels like and is suppose to be, but not how it is. That is why it is abstract. It is based on societal factors and what society has deemed a certain sex should act like.
I am a male because I was born the male sex. How I feel about this fact is beside the point. Gender is a social construct and has muddied the water for a long time.
The N word is a derogatory term in every way in that it is meant to demean and dehumanize an entire race. Calling a person who was born a biological female a female is a factual use of a word. The fact that they are uncomfortable with their own biological sex is a different matter.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 28, 2021 21:35:25 GMT
Also, how the hell does a person born a certain sex know what it feels like to be in the mind of someone born the opposite sex? How does a ciswoman know she has a similar inner experience to other ciswomen? Outward behaviours are all we have to go on. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Apr 28, 2021 21:48:38 GMT
Also, how the hell does a person born a certain sex know what it feels like to be in the mind of someone born the opposite sex? How does a ciswoman know she has a similar inner experience to other ciswomen? Outward behaviours are all we have to go on. That is my point. They don't. No person on Earth has the same inner experience and there are variances in everything when it comes to how a person or group feels on the inside. That is what I mean about "gender" muddying the waters. Gender means nothing to me. I am a male because I was born with a penis and not a vagina.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Apr 28, 2021 22:25:20 GMT
Also, how the hell does a person born a certain sex know what it feels like to be in the mind of someone born the opposite sex? How does a ciswoman know she has a similar inner experience to other ciswomen? Outward behaviours are all we have to go on. The reason why most people who are anti-trans are anti-trans is because it sickens them/makes them uncomfortable. This is why no argument will change their mind. I have actually heard people who say homosexuality is wrong and when asked why, their answer is "because it's gross." I am a very open minded person and have come around to agreeing that trans people should be able to use whatever bathroom they want. I am still working out the sports issue in my mind, but I am leaning towards letting them be in whatever one fits their gender. I worked this out using logic and fairness and what level of harm it could do vs. not. I was stuck on a real worry that men would dress in drag and then pretend to be trans just to use the woman's bathroom and then after thinking about it more over the course of a couple months that that doesn't add up. That real trans women would be in more danger using the men's bathroom than biological women would be if trans women were allowed to use the women's bathroom.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 29, 2021 10:27:09 GMT
That is what I mean about "gender" muddying the waters. Gender means nothing to me. I am a male because I was born with a penis and not a vagina. So you suffer from no discomfort regarding the gender role assigned to you by virtue of your sex. For people like you, gender therefore largely is irrelevant/ muddying the waters. But not everyone is as comfortable as you. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Apr 29, 2021 10:29:41 GMT
That is what I mean about "gender" muddying the waters. Gender means nothing to me. I am a male because I was born with a penis and not a vagina. So you suffer from no discomfort regarding the gender role assigned to you by virtue of your sex. For people like you, gender therefore largely is irrelevant/ muddying the waters. But not everyone is as comfortable as you. I realize that. It is what it is. Life is an unfair, absurd joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Apr 29, 2021 15:49:25 GMT
That is my point. They don't. No person on Earth has the same inner experience and there are variances in everything when it comes to how a person or group feels on the inside. That is what I mean about "gender" muddying the waters. Gender means nothing to me. I am a male because I was born with a penis and not a vagina. Your own gender should mean something to you. Or do you just take it for granted like being born right handed? Here’s a thought question. If a right-handed person loses his or her right arm to an accident or disease and from there on must use their left arm, do they become left-handed? Your left hand and right hand aren't thoughts, so I don't understand the comparison. I don't care about gender, I only care about biological sex. I am a male because my biology is that of a male.
|
|
