Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan
I get the impression that Dawkins is a god to a lot of these people, so if he says "this lady is over reacting" they take it to mean "launch the torpedoes." My guess is that if he'd taken her complaint a little less cavalierly (or didn't say anything), then it probably wouldn't have been as bad.
At any rate, the "you got what you deserved" crowd hit the Slate article's comments's section too.
I hate the Westboro Baptist Church with the fire of a thousand angry gods, but I can't really imagine taking the time or energy to making their lives miserable.
|
(1) She made this Slateworthy by saying it's from members of her "own community." I think she's discovered, as many before her, that you don't have some greater right to dignity and respect within a self-defined community as without. It's wrong to be rude; it's not wronger to be rude to someone "in your community." It's that type of insider/outsider bullshit that leads to privilege, and excuses terrible things like FGM and hazing. There is no higher standard; the standard is the same.
(2) She misread the tweet she quoted. It was an unfunny joke. It's illegal to grope someone in an elevator; anonymity is the only reason the crime even occurs. A person who publicly claims an intention to do so actually drops to the bottom of the list of people likely to do it. To demand additional security from conference organizers is a bizarre response.
(3) I think she's misreading Dawkins. His point was about the relative superiority of life in a Western secular democracy, and he's right about that. Anytime you say "We're lucky to have such problems" you're minimizing the experience of the victim,
but that's the entire point. Dawkins wants to destroy theocratic thinking; it's exactly his point that we should all live in a world where women getting
asked for sex is the worst problem we face. I have a hard time seeing him as a bad guy in this. [ETA: or, what Sidd said.]
