697

Rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 8 months ago by Persona3Reload@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago

A little bit late for Hitchens to do that. I'm not super excited about Dawkins doing that either (or anything he does in general), then the current visible faces of atheism advocacy seem docile to the point of being innocuous, and most of the past ones have turned out to be dogshit.

Is a visible face of atheism advocacy who is assertive, unapologetic and militant, without seeking hate-induced controversies for the sake of doing profitable grifting too much to ask for?

[-] Rev3rze@feddit.nl 2 points 8 months ago

Ah shit. I'm out of the loop. What did Dawkins do?

[-] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago

In a podcast with Helen Joyce, author of the book Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality, Dawkins said that "sex really is binary" and argued that children are becoming transgender under pressure from their teachers and peers.[55]

https://religionnews.com/2023/08/01/richard-dawkins-has-abandoned-science-to-justify-his-transphobia/

This is the culmination of a long, slow cooking that's been going on for years in his mind.

[-] Rev3rze@feddit.nl 3 points 8 months ago

Wow. What an incredible let down. He really has abandoned science. Any biologist worth their salt understands that biology is never binary. He fucking knows better and chooses to present it as black and white while wilfully ignoring the massive spectrum in between.

I really expected more humanity from him.