So that Ekwasi guy had a pretty good comment, IMO. A lot of people on voat like to say that facts can't be racist. And indeed that is true, but the way Ekwasi worded the response is enlightening to me. Stating facts in a certain way might be perceived racist if there is reason to believe or feel that the speaker's own bias is leaking into the actual presentation.
It is a "mental rat running back and forth in the head" kind of thing, because you can argue both sides of this point all day long until you're blue in the face. Egh, my brain hurts now.
"Educational systems that teach boys only memorisation of one particular book, and teach girls nothing at all, are not calculated to breed success in science." Richard Dawkins. DAMN
"Actually this raises the interesting question of whether, and under what circumstances, we should refrain from stating uncomfortable facts for fear of giving hurt and offence" Richard Dawkins
"If Islam has not moved on during the same period, perhaps Muslims might consider asking why, and whether something could be done about it. That was sort of why I added the final sentence of my original tweet: “They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.” Richard Dawkins. WOW
Is this guy still alive? This was back in 2013
He is, if he were not it would be huge news.
Another one from Sam Harris, the Islamic Empire rivalled that of Alexander the Great and lasted hundreds of years, but even among Muslin apologists the first thing they usually bring up is how Arabs preserved what Europe created during the dark ages...
"He is, if he were not it would be huge news."
I've literally never heard of this guy....... Is he popular in anti-Muslim circles or something?
He does say some pretty incendiary things that could be taken the wrong way by billions of Muslims luckily for his sake they don't know who he is haha.
He's a quite brilliant evolutionary biologist who's work changed the understanding of evolution, how it works, the motivation/purpose of evolution.
He also coined the term "meme" to describe a viral biological phenomenon which was later applied to cultural ideas on the internet.
I recommend his books, particularly the extended phenotype.
How Dawkins is known more for his public personality than his actual work in science, his opposition towards religious influence on public education and clashes with religious figures have made him quite famous.
Ah, well I guess it depends on your circle of friends and what you read. He's a biologist and well-known but in certain circles so it makes sense you might not have heard of him. He is actually a very gentle-spirited polite man in person and his writings on science are inspirational and fascinating. I especially liked the Blind Watchmaker and The Ancestor's Tale. Also he has some Christmas lectures that are fun to watch I don't like his thoughts on religion much though he's misrepresented. He does say some things that could be 'incindiary' but that's only because he's a biologist and attacking religion. It's often claimed homosexuals should be sterilized or lose their jobs or put to death often, it just does not stand out as much because it's usually religious people, especially Muslims and fundamentalist Christians who say those things. There is some unwritten (and sometimes written) rule that religion should get some sort of special treatment in society. When Dawkins created his science and reason foundation he had to explain how it benefited society before getting tax-exempt status. When a mormon decided to teach people how Joseph smith used searstones to translate golden tablets, who believes black people are black because they are descendents of satan, or baptizing the dead or wearing holy underwear ... it is assumed that is beneficial to society. Also religious people get exceptions to dress code or to wear silly hats and despite their privileges, many of them constantly lobby to be able to discriminate against homosexuals while enjoying tax-exempt status, even though many churches spend most of their $$ on church services for their members. It's like getting a tax deduction for your local country club. He got a lot of attention for writing The God Delusion, I think the book is treated unfairly but I think if someone wanted to read an anti-religion book it's better to read a book by an ex-pastor and what not. I like him for his writings on science. Anyways, on the subject of religion while I don't get it and don't practice I don't really care if my friends are religious I just accept it as part of their identity and usually they just want to be comfortable anyways and it's not my place to tell them their hope is in vain. To force atheism on them is like trying to force someone to read and discuss philosophy when they do not care about it. Regarding the point about Islam though, I do think Dawkins has a point lol. There may be exceptions but there's a clear reason Jews/Christians tend to be getting so many Nobel prizes and people who grew up in an Islamic society do not. If someone grows up Buddhist or Bahai they aren't really restricted in the same way. Now to be fair at least in some ways Turkey is an exception but I believe it's the only one.
I think I can sum up my feelings about this with a quote from The Big Lebowski: “You’re not wrong, Walter, you’re just an asshole.”
Facts themselves are not racist, but using them in a context where they’re going to come across racist is. It’s just like how a rifle can either be a tool, a weapon, or God forbid a toy.
or God forbid a toy
Airsoft. Or air rifle with FPS cranked way down (otherwise it's as lethal as a regular rifle).
Mr. Dawkins comment is interesting. While the discussion comments are trash that are better suited to voat where people are more tolerant of hate for hate's sake.