[system7rocks]

Has Dawkins sat down with numerous trans people to listen to their stories and perspectives... and why his actions and words are offensive? Of course, offensive doesn't mean he has to pull back or go a different route. But sometimes, our choice of words causes us to have social repercussions. It certainly has me throughout my life. Often, I can repair those damaged relationships by listening, learning, and growing - sometimes, I cannot. Isn't this part of what it means to live in a society that is free and contested, where folks can push and pull in various directions? I just don't get this article. Is he a victim? Or what? What does he want us to do? Not criticize or complain about his dumb tweets?

[exodust]

> What does he want us to do?

Are you waiting to be told what to do? The article is asking whether we're approaching Orwellian times. If police turn up at your work because of a satirical tweet you wrote last night, maybe that's something to write about and be concerned about.

> Not criticize

I believe his problem is when criticism bares teeth and is delivered as legal action, or some kind of penalty or strike action, or drummed up hit pieces etc.

[system7rocks]

If the police showed up because of a satirical tweet, I would laugh. As should he. Come on. Have the police showed up to Richard Dawkins' home? No.

He didn't describe any legal action. Youtube is a private company. Youtube is owned by a trash company. I don't get it.

[exodust]

He mentions police showing up at someone's work regarding a tweet reported as hate-speech. Not really a laughing matter. It's a waste of police resources for starters.

Dawkins is not compelling reading on this subject. But I did find it funny the connection he makes between 1984's "2+2=5" and "her penis"... I chuckled at that!

I read your other comments here. You are pushing for Dawkins to sit down and chat with more trans people and discuss all these things, rather than throw stones from a place that looks a bit like intolerance or out of touch. Nothing wrong with that idea. Bring on the debate! The difference is that instead of his usual atheism subject matter, where God literally can't join the debate, it's now possible for the subject of his complaints to step up and answer his questions and concerns. I agree I think it should happen.

[HDThoreaun]

so you didnt even read the piece...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> I just don't get this article.

If I understand the article, people who don't "get this article" are the very sort he is describing.

> Not criticize or complain about his dumb tweets?

What in particular did he say that you find "dumb"?

[system7rocks]

Most tweets are dumb. They are a tweet. That website is a mess.

I understand his article. He is bothered that he gets pushback and labeled all sorts of things because of what he writes. It happens. It's life. It's also not new. It's why so many religious/political people chose to create their own publications throughout history to not have to deal with editors/market forces.

Is he incapable of stepping back and understanding that the world is changing? Or looking at the bigger picture? Or thinking critically about the ways this moment mirrors other moments in history?

[itiro]

Constructive inquiry is different than the whine Dawkins is discussing.

He’s saying what you said; people write things, fuck off if you don’t like what they write, trans people, right wing people, liberal people, HN people.

And it’s being spun here as if he doesn’t get the point we all just absorbed reading his article.

Very “you made this? I made this.” meme.

[JellyBeanThief]

> Constructive inquiry is different than the whine Dawkins is discussing.

Then Dawkins needs to get off Twitter, because it will never give him what he wants. He hasn't found a problem in society, he's found a problem on Twitter. As it stands, he's yelling at the ceiling because it's blocking his view of the sky. He needs to go outside.

[itiro]

You made a grammatically correct point but I’m not sure it’s logically sound.

Human Twitter posters are members of society. How is it possible to wave off Twitter as not a problem in society when Twitter users exist as part of society?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> Then Dawkins needs to get off Twitter, because it will never give him what he wants.

Don't we all need to do it?

> He hasn't found a problem in society, he's found a problem on Twitter.

The overlap between the two is large enough, that I don't think you can find a non-technical problem on Twitter that isn't also a problem within society itself.

> he's yelling at the ceiling because it's blocking his view of the sky.

Like everyone else.