Richard Dawkins falls for fascist talking points

[jerry mcmasters]

No, it's just that there's a ridiculously high probability of massive logical failures in the book, so not going to waste my time with it.

Lol.  Okay.  I say get in the arena and wrestle with ideas you suspect might be uncomfortable or wrong or even evil.  Evolution gave you a brain.  Take it out for a spin.

[GenesisNemesis]

I have no clue but my guess would be you rely on the echo chamber of your choosing to tell you what to think about the guy.  It would be risky and scary, but you could read his actual words so NOTHING comes between you and his actual beliefs.  PM your address and I will send you a copy of the book.  I have not read it either but I have read and listened to D Murray and find him quite reasonable.  GN same offer.  We could all read it together and discuss it here.

I would rather watch scat porn, and I might even get more enjoyment out of that. 

[jerry mcmasters]

I would rather watch scat porn, and I might even get more enjoyment out of that. 

...and everybody laughed.

Wouldn't it be better to READ the book and KNOW to your own intellectual satisfaction that the book is shit rather than just get pats on the back from people that had also never read the back but you already knew were going to agree with you that it must be shit?  Nevermind- the answer was never yes.  (Offer stands though)

[Phaedrus]

It isn't necessary to read something to have an intellectually informed opinion on it.

[jerry mcmasters]

It isn't necessary to read something to have an intellectually informed opinion on it.

That is a general assertion that can be true when speaking generally about whatever, but the problem is we have already narrowed the issue down to something you admitted to not knowing jack shit about but you are breezily bluffing must be bullshit, because, you know, it isn't necessary to read something to whatever whatever.  Offer still stands, PM me your address I will order the book and send you so you can read it and take the crazy step of finding out if your preconceptions are valid.  Offer valid for first ten forum PMers.  We'll do a group book read and analysis thread.

[GenesisNemesis]

...and everybody laughed.

Wouldn't it be better to READ the book and KNOW to your own intellectual satisfaction that the book is shit rather than just get pats on the back from people that had also never read the back but you already knew were going to agree with you that it must be shit?  Nevermind- the answer was never yes.  (Offer stands though)

It's not my fault that the right constantly straw mans the left, and spreads misinformation and fake news all the fucking time, thus making me extremely suspicious of any right-wing "thinkers" as well, who just so happen to do the same.

[Mathilda]

Wouldn't it be better to READ the book and KNOW to your own intellectual satisfaction that the book is shit rather than just get pats on the back from people that had also never read the back but you already knew were going to agree with you that it must be shit?  Nevermind- the answer was never yes.  (Offer stands though)

We know the right are full of disinformation, lies and strawman arguments. There are too many books to read each one so we have to look at how trustworthy the source before wasting precious time.

It's the same reason we don't all read every book a Christian zealot tells us to. Eventually you start to realise they are full of the same lies.

[SYZ]

Sam Harris said of Douglas Murray's book:   "Simply brilliant. Reading it to the end,
I felt as though I'd just drawn my first full breath in years. At a moment of collective
madness, there is nothing more refreshing—or indeed, provocative—than sanity".

And from Kirkus Reviews:

A British journalist fulminates against Black Lives Matter, critical race theory,
and other threats to White privilege.

"There is an assault going on against everything to do with the Western world—
its past, present, and future.” So writes Spectator associate editor Murray, whose
previous books have sounded warnings against the presumed dangers of Islam
and of non-Western immigration to the West.

As the author argues, Westerners are supposed to take in refugees from Africa,
Asia, and Latin America while being “expected to abolish themselves.” Murray
soon arrives at a crux: “Historically the citizens of Europe and their offspring
societies in the Americas and Australasia have been white,” he writes, while the
present is bringing all sorts of people who aren’t White into the social contract.

The author also takes on the well-worn subject of campus “wokeness,” a topic
of considerable discussion by professors who question whether things have gone
a bit too far; indeed, the campus is the locus for much of the anti-Western
sentiment that Murray condemns.

The author’s arguments against reparations for past damages inflicted by
institutionalized slavery are particularly glib. “It comes down to people who look
like the people to whom a wrong was done in history receiving money from people
who look like the people who may have done the wrong,” he writes. “It is hard to
imagine anything more likely to rip apart a society than attempting a wealth
transfer based on this principle.”

Murray does attempt to negotiate some divides reasonably, arguing against
“exclusionary lines” and for Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s call for a more vigorous and
welcoming civil culture. Too often, however, the author falters, as when he
derides Gen. Mark Milley for saying, “I want to understand white rage. And I’m
white”—perhaps forgetting the climacteric White rage that Milley monitored on
January 6, 2021.

A scattershot exercise in preaching to the choir.

—So Jerry, at the end of the day I don't need to read Murray's book—as you
   suggest his critics do.  I already know I don't need to read it.

[Phaedrus]

—So Jerry, at the end of the day I don't need to read Murray's book—as you
   suggest his critics do.  I already know I don't need to read it.

But, but, but......you have to read it to know what it's really about.

[Mathilda]

Sam Harris said of Douglas Murray's book:   "Simply brilliant"

That's all I need to know to avoid it.

[Phaedrus]

I personally don't have an issue with Harris, but I also wouldn't just read a book upon his recommendation.

[GenesisNemesis]

As the author argues, Westerners are supposed to take in refugees from Africa,
Asia, and Latin America while being “expected to abolish themselves.” 

Yup, one of his central arguments is a big ol' straw man and hyperbolic sensationalist fearmongering. Just as I predicted. But I'm supposed to be open minded about this tabloid crap or something.

[isbelldl]

The issue boils down to the fact that we only have finite time. We would need good reason to devote hours or days (likely more, I'm a slow reader) of that limited time to that book. The initial impression doesn't make it look worth that time. I haven't seen anything compelling enough to convince me otherwise. If someone who has read wants to try, they're welcome to. Dawkins didn't provide compelling reason though.

[Alan V]

Trump also likes McDonald's. Does that say anything about other McD's customers?

No.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

No.  

Hopefully my point is clearer now.

[abaris]

Sam Harris said of Douglas Murray's book:   "Simply brilliant. Reading it to the end,
I felt as though I'd just drawn my first full breath in years. At a moment of collective
madness, there is nothing more refreshing—or indeed, provocative—than sanity".

Why am I not surprised, that Harris finds something like that brillant?

I'm certainly not reading a pile of shit that regurgitates the viewpoints of the alt.right movement all over Europe. The Great Reset, as they call it, to weave it into their conspiracy theory of good ol' whitey cancelling himself. Himself, because it's all about male power and female breeding. Since that's the recipe, these people come up with. To breed like rabbits.

[Rhythmcs]

Immigration is bad. White civilization is under attack from islamists without, and race traitors within. If nothing is done about it, there will be no place in the world for the white man.

Douglas Murray provides a thin but workable veneer of intellectualism for a call to rahowa.

[Inkubus]

He's since gone one further.

Atheist Richard Dawkins signs controversial declaration opposing gender reassignment surgeries and puberty blockers for children

This is what the declaration actually calls for:



If you substitute in any other minority then it's easy to see how this is outright fascism. At the very least it's a call for segregation. In practice it's a call for slow genocide.

Dear lord. I guess I should be... glad or something that I'm such a great judge of character   (with a couple truly bad exceptions   )

But seriously a) why are so many "famous atheists" such right-leaning dickheads and b) there might be an explanation if I dig deep enough but I'm at a loss why so much hate, demonisation and dehumanisation is aimed as such a small - and marginalised - part of society. Is it simply that a certain type of people just *need* a really different other to demonise and belittle (and now it's much harder to do it to, say, gay people?)

A mere "I don't understand it" doesn't really account for the type of visceral hatred coming out even from otherwise supposedly "liberal" people. Even if you don't "understand" it - hell, even if transsexualtiy were entirely made-up - it is still none of your business if other people decide to "mutilate" ( ) their bodies. Nobody's coming for your dick or tits or whatever (and no, doctors are not chopping off the penises of kids... unless we're talking about intersex children where the chopping off of things is so frighteningly random that often really fucks up those kids), so why are so many so bent out of shape, to the degree of denying other human beings the minimum of respect that *everyone* deserves by mere virtue of being a human being...

Finally a little reality:

The ban on giving puberty blockers to under-18s questioning their gender identify is to be made permanent, Health Secretary Wes Streeting has announced. Link

Now when can we expect a ban on sending convicted rapists to a woman's prison?

A double rapist who changed gender while waiting to stand trial has been jailed for eight years. Link

My highlight.

This constitutes hate speech. This is the second time you have done this. Do not do it again

[Mathilda]

I've added an admin warning to Inkubus's post.

[epronovost]

Now when can we expect a ban on sending convicted rapists to a woman's prison?

There already are rapists who victimized women in woman's prisons. What's one or two more going to change exactly?

Plus, it's not like prison wardens don't have at their disposal tools to deal with particularly dangerous prisoners as to avoid them making more victims from inside a prison.

[Jamie Smithie]

Douglas Murray’s The War on the west and Dawkins’ open-mindedness are deeply concerning. I must say, it truly baffles me how anyone, let alone someone of Richard Dawkins' stature, could find Douglas Murray’s The War on the West to be anything other than a dangerous, misguided, and frankly harmful piece of work. While I’m aware that some people—for reasons I can’t quite fathom—believe Murray’s arguments hold merit, I’m here to explain why this book is not just wrong but wrong in a way that’s so insidious it should be obvious to everyone. Allow me to elucidate, although I warn you: I’m no scholar, just a concerned individual trying to make sense of the chaos.

First and foremost, Murray’s central thesis—that the West is under siege by relentless waves of unfair criticism—is so blatantly absurd that it’s almost laughable. I mean, sure, people criticize Western culture and history. Who doesn’t? But to suggest that this criticism constitutes some kind of "war" is, quite frankly, an overreaction of the highest order. Wars have tanks, bombs, and casualties. Words and ideas? They’re not weapons. Not really. Or at least, they shouldn’t be viewed as such. By framing criticism as an attack, Murray is just being overly dramatic, and honestly, it’s unbecoming.

Then there’s the issue of Murray’s tone, which—and this might be a bit hard to articulate—feels uncomfortably confident. Confidence, in my view, is always a red flag, especially when someone is discussing something as nuanced and complex as the cultural legacy of the West. His certainty makes it difficult for readers like me to engage with his ideas. If you’re so sure you’re right, why bother writing a book? Why not just declare yourself king of ideas and be done with it? It’s off-putting, to say the least.

As for Dawkins’ "open-mindedness," I must admit that I’m deeply disappointed. Open-mindedness is all well and good in theory, but surely there are limits. Should we be open-minded about ideas that are clearly harmful? I think not. Dawkins’ praise of Murray’s book—calling it "utterly superb"—is, in my opinion, a serious lapse in judgment. It makes me question whether Dawkins truly understands the broader implications of his words. Does he not see how his endorsement could lend credibility to ideas that many of us find distasteful? Frankly, it’s irresponsible.

And let’s not forget Murray’s tendency to oversimplify. He claims that critics of the West ignore its achievements while fixating on its flaws. Well, maybe that’s true—but so what? It’s perfectly natural to focus on flaws. That’s how progress happens. By pointing out what’s wrong, we learn how to make things right. This fixation on "positivity" and "balance" is just a smokescreen to distract from the very real problems that need addressing. Nobody needs a cheerleader for the West; we need critics, plain and simple.

I find both Murray’s book and Dawkins’ attitude toward it deeply troubling. While I’m sure they think they’re contributing to some grand intellectual debate, what they’re really doing is perpetuating a narrative that’s both unnecessary and unhelpful. I urge anyone who’s tempted to read The War on the West to think twice. There are better uses of your time, and honestly, better books to read. Let’s not waste our energy giving undue attention to ideas that are best left ignored.

[mordant]

As for Dawkins’ "open-mindedness," I must admit that I’m deeply disappointed.

Hello and welcome, Jamie. I urge you to introduce yourself here, so we can get to know you:

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/for...php?fid=93

I am not disappointed because I expect this kind of horse-pucky from Dawkins. He regularly bloviates outside his area of actual expertise and thus "steps in it". This is just arguably the most ghastly example. Arguably because in the past for example he has claimed there's such a thing as "mild [sexual] abuse" that victims tend to make too big a deal of.

[Jamie Smithie]

I wasn't aware of that. What exactly did he say?

[mordant]

I wasn't aware of that. What exactly did he say?

He was actually relating some sexual abuse he experienced as a child, inappropriate touching from someone in the extended family IIRC. He said it was "mild abuse" and that he doesn't have any significant lingering effects, therefore he concluded that anyone he deems to have had the same level of abuse who regards it as traumatic is making too much out of it. He regards raising a child as a fundamentalist as more abusive.

And he has been obstinately defending those remarks ever since.

https://www.theatlantic.com/internationa...in/311230/

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/...se-remarks

[jerry mcmasters]

Douglas Murray’s The War on the west and Dawkins’ open-mindedness are deeply concerning. I must say, it truly baffles me how anyone, let alone someone of Richard Dawkins' stature, could find Douglas Murray’s The War on the West to be anything other than a dangerous, misguided, and frankly harmful piece of work. While I’m aware that some people—for reasons I can’t quite fathom—believe Murray’s arguments hold merit, I’m here to explain why this book is not just wrong but wrong in a way that’s so insidious it should be obvious to everyone. Allow me to elucidate, although I warn you: I’m no scholar, just a concerned individual trying to make sense of the chaos.

First and foremost, Murray’s central thesis—that the West is under siege by relentless waves of unfair criticism—is so blatantly absurd that it’s almost laughable. I mean, sure, people criticize Western culture and history. Who doesn’t? But to suggest that this criticism constitutes some kind of "war" is, quite frankly, an overreaction of the highest order. Wars have tanks, bombs, and casualties. Words and ideas? They’re not weapons. Not really. Or at least, they shouldn’t be viewed as such. By framing criticism as an attack, Murray is just being overly dramatic, and honestly, it’s unbecoming.

Then there’s the issue of Murray’s tone, which—and this might be a bit hard to articulate—feels uncomfortably confident. Confidence, in my view, is always a red flag, especially when someone is discussing something as nuanced and complex as the cultural legacy of the West. His certainty makes it difficult for readers like me to engage with his ideas. If you’re so sure you’re right, why bother writing a book? Why not just declare yourself king of ideas and be done with it? It’s off-putting, to say the least.

As for Dawkins’ "open-mindedness," I must admit that I’m deeply disappointed. Open-mindedness is all well and good in theory, but surely there are limits. Should we be open-minded about ideas that are clearly harmful? I think not. Dawkins’ praise of Murray’s book—calling it "utterly superb"—is, in my opinion, a serious lapse in judgment. It makes me question whether Dawkins truly understands the broader implications of his words. Does he not see how his endorsement could lend credibility to ideas that many of us find distasteful? Frankly, it’s irresponsible.

And let’s not forget Murray’s tendency to oversimplify. He claims that critics of the West ignore its achievements while fixating on its flaws. Well, maybe that’s true—but so what? It’s perfectly natural to focus on flaws. That’s how progress happens. By pointing out what’s wrong, we learn how to make things right. This fixation on "positivity" and "balance" is just a smokescreen to distract from the very real problems that need addressing. Nobody needs a cheerleader for the West; we need critics, plain and simple.

I find both Murray’s book and Dawkins’ attitude toward it deeply troubling. While I’m sure they think they’re contributing to some grand intellectual debate, what they’re really doing is perpetuating a narrative that’s both unnecessary and unhelpful. I urge anyone who’s tempted to read The War on the West to think twice. There are better uses of your time, and honestly, better books to read. Let’s not waste our energy giving undue attention to ideas that are best left ignored.

Did you read the book cover to cover?