Richard Dawkins' Berkeley event cancelled for 'Islamophobia'

a reply to: chr0naut

None of that answers my question.

So who gets to dictate what is considered hate speech?

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: chr0naut

None of that answers my question.

So who gets to dictate what is considered hate speech?

In this case the radio station does as it is within their rights.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I understand that, in my OP I never said anyone's rights were being infringed upon, but the conversation has evolved, and I'm curious to know who gets to dictate what is considered hate speech?

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Deaf Alien

I understand that, in my OP I never said anyone's rights were being infringed upon, but the conversation has evolved, and I'm curious to know who gets to dictate what is considered hate speech?

Yeah. I don't think anyone really can dictate what is considered hate speech, at least here in the USA. The only hate speech that should probably be restricted if it incites riot and violence.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

That was exactly my point. I wasn't expecting an answer, because I know there isn't a logical one without sounding authoritarian.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

And even then, we have a dangerous precedent being set now by the likes of Antifa and BLM that even simply having a speaking event where a speaker they don't like is coming to speak is an excuse for violence and rioting. So, the question then becomes are these speakers actually inciting riots and violence with their speech? Or are there certain elements using the occasion of a speaker of opposing viewpoint to act out in an attempt to censor that viewpoint.

What is really provoking the violence?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Deaf Alien

And even then, we have a dangerous precedent being set now by the likes of Antifa and BLM that even simply having a speaking event where a speaker they don't like is coming to speak is an excuse for violence and rioting. So, the question then becomes are these speakers actually inciting riots and violence with their speech? Or are there certain elements using the occasion of a speaker of opposing viewpoint to act out in an attempt to censor that viewpoint.

What is really provoking the violence?

I was thinking about that and expected someone to ask that question. I never saw Ann and Milo trying to incite riot but like you said (at least in Milo's case) it would incite certain elements. Milo himself admitted that he is a troll.

a reply to: ketsuko

A perfect example of what can happen, when you allow people to dictate what is considered "hate".

And because of it, the lines have become so blurry that now every opposing view is considered hate, and they use the "hate" tag to justify their actions.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

There is a very real difference though between being a troll and trying to get people out of their comfort zone and a bit angry and openly speaking to your supporters about lynching people or throwing off buildings or setting them on fire.

For one thing, when someone like Milo provokes, he's putting himself in harm's way because he's making himself a target.

For what most people think of as actual hate speech, they are thinking of demagogues like Hitler who incited the people of Germany into genocide against entire segments of their population.

In my mind, there is a difference.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: chr0naut

None of that answers my question.

So who gets to dictate what is considered hate speech?

In this case, the radio station has chosen to withhold their services based upon being informed of things that Dawkins has said previously.

They did not prevent Dawkins from saying what he wants via other media.

And the headline is obviously a quote of Dawkins and is his particular spin. He may have actually been bumped from the radio station's schedule for different reasons like scheduling constraints or an advertiser threatening to withdraw if Dawkins was given a platform.

a reply to: chr0naut

Yea and i underestand the radio has that right, that was never an issue, I was merely pointing out the double standards.

And as for the spin.. what spin? The radio station has been quoted for cancelling his appearance due to offending so many Muslims.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Richard Dawkins is equally critical of all religions so it seems a bit hypocritical to book him knowing that (because that's what he's known for) and then canceling on the grounds of a certain religion being criticized.

Why would they book him to speak when they knew religion would most likely come up at one point or another? Seems pretty dumb in my opinion.

Seriously, like they don't know who he is? So where is the cave you live in?

Denny

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: chr0naut

Yea and i underestand the radio has that right, that was never an issue, I was merely pointing out the double standards.

And as for the spin.. what spin? The radio station has been quoted for cancelling his appearance due to offending so many Muslims.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in the US has recommended that where speech may be inflammatory that the preferred response is to broadcast the opposing views as well rather than to censure.

Compliant with that, the radio station has chosen to schedule a forum type event, rather than a lecture format, with Mr Dawkins, so that his views could be responded to in a balanced way. This was made known to Dawkins publicist days ago and prior to the decision to cancel the lecture and again after the decision had been taken.

Instead he has chosen to omit part of the story to 'spin' it his way.

Here is the KFPS Radio's Statement on Cancellation of Richard Dawkins Event

a reply to: chr0naut

This is the full context of Mr.Dawkins comments, from your link.

Why not report the context? Too much there to prevent a knee-jerk reaction?

“It’s tempting to say all religions are bad, and I do say all religions are bad, but it’s a worse temptation to say all religions are equally bad because they’re not,” he added.

“If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world it’s quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam.

“It’s terribly important to modify that because of course that doesn’t mean all Muslims are evil, very far from it. Individual Muslims suffer more from Islam than anyone else.

“They suffer from the homophobia, the misogyny, the joylessness which is preached by extreme Islam, Isis and the Iranian regime.

“So it is a major evil in the world, we do have to combat it, but we don’t do what Trump did and say all Muslims should be shut out of the country. That’s draconian, that’s illiberal, inhumane and wicked. I am against Islam not least because of the unpleasant effects it has on the lives of Muslims.”

This is hardly hate speech, and it appears KFPS intentionally took it out of context. So who's really trying to spin the narrative?

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: chr0naut

This is the full context of Mr.Dawkins comments, from your link.

Why not report the context? Too much there to prevent a knee-jerk reaction?

“It’s tempting to say all religions are bad, and I do say all religions are bad, but it’s a worse temptation to say all religions are equally bad because they’re not,” he added.

“If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world it’s quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam.

“It’s terribly important to modify that because of course that doesn’t mean all Muslims are evil, very far from it. Individual Muslims suffer more from Islam than anyone else.

“They suffer from the homophobia, the misogyny, the joylessness which is preached by extreme Islam, Isis and the Iranian regime.

“So it is a major evil in the world, we do have to combat it, but we don’t do what Trump did and say all Muslims should be shut out of the country. That’s draconian, that’s illiberal, inhumane and wicked. I am against Islam not least because of the unpleasant effects it has on the lives of Muslims.”

This is hardly hate speech, and it appears KFPS intentionally took it out of context. So who's really trying to spin the narrative?

The BBC news site, and the radio station site both specifically mentioned that it was a tweet that upset them.

Tweets are limited to 140 characters. This comment that you have quoted is 643 characters long.

While Dawkins might claim that as the context of what he said, it wasn't.

The actual context was this Tweet:

@ToddKincannon Haven't read Koran so couldn't quote chapter & verse like I can for Bible. But often say Islam greatest force for evil today — Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) March 1, 2013

Perhaps it should to be expected for an atheist to be less morally constrained, in regard to truthfulness, than a religious person?

a reply to: underpass61

It already has to a large extent.

Do you see me on the television? Do you see me performing public speaking roles, at rallies at the podium, explaining the structure of the false idols we have allowed to rule us for generations? Popular consensus says that people like me have no platform of any significance what so ever, specifically because the programming works, and people hate the truth more than they hate any type of a lie!

a reply to: chr0naut

Are you being serious? The tweet literally contains only a single sentence. Surely if you're going to talk about context you have to look at things in a wider scope than just one sentence. What are you even saying the tweet is context for? Isn't the tweet what sparked the controversy in the first place?

Anyway, good on Dawkins for criticizing Islam too. I think this blindness to it is detracting a lot from liberal credibility, and is one of the major causes for this reactionism we're seeing now. It probably won Trump the election.

a reply to: chr0naut

Smh, that's what you call taking things out of context..

And it wasn't just his tweets, they clearly said "and other comments".

And now you're saying religious people have more morals too?



And did you really count the characters?

Lol..

a reply to: TrueBrit

All I can say is that if you are on the side advocating censorship then the programming is complete.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: chr0naut

Smh, that's what you call taking things out of context..

And it wasn't just his tweets, they clearly said "and other comments".

Yes. His tweet said that he "often" says this.

And now you're saying religious people have more morals too?

I was speculatively asking a question. The question mark at the end is a clear indicator of such. The suggestion that religious people have more moral boundaries is only one possible answer, but it would seem to be the one you interpreted as the answer.

And did you really count the characters?

Lol..

No, I used software to determine the count. I am somewhat within the Aspergers spectrum and I am more comfortable with technical exactitude than emotive and often misleading appeals.