Richard Dawkins’ forums suspended

It’s hardly the biggest news in the world. Given some of the panic on the web one would think whole of the Internet was due to be shut down. Richard Dawkins’ web forums have been suspended pending an overdue clean up. I’ve been commenting at length on this here.

My original article critical of his forums has been receiving a massive amount of traffic, mainly from a cesspit of substandard debate which makes the Dawkins forums look as if they were frequented exclusively by leading intellectuals.

I have been called “an absolute f**king c**t” on this forum, as they flounder to find some fault in my argument. Finding nothing it can criticise validly, the inferior mind resorts to vulgarity. This is nothing, though, compared with what technical admin Josh has been receiving over at RD.net – an avalanche of despicable abuse which has motivated Richard Dawkins himself to make a statement.

What truly, utterly pathetic people these are who have nothing better to do than mail abuse to people because their crutch (an Internet forum not even on their own site) has been taken away (because of misbehaviour of contributors and moderators, mind you). If ever the phrase “Get a life” was relevant, it’s now.

Richard Dawkins has certainly received a wake up call as to what was going on at his forum, as he says himself above. This, despite him having said this previously, when writing of the marvels of the Internet:

“Of course there are negative aspects, but they are easily forgiven. I’ve already referred to the lamentable content of many chat room conversations without editorial control.

The tendency to flaming rudeness is fostered by the convention — whose sociological provenance we might discuss one day — of anonymity.

Insults and obscenities, to which you would not dream of signing your real name, flow gleefully from the keyboard when you are masquerading online as ‘TinkyWinky’ or ‘FlubPoodle’ or ‘ArchWeasel’.”

Richard Dawkins

To people who have not connected the dots yet, I don’t publish intellectually substandard comments on my site here, so don’t be surprised if your comment isn’t turning up. Don’t even waste your time posting it. That’s one of the benefits of having your own website: you can run it however you like, as you are finding out as Prof Dawkins exercises his executive control. Tough.

I’m going to e-mail some support to Josh now, and then probably have nothing more to do with this debate. It’s just not important enough. If you have any kind of life at all you’ll do the same.

NSS Secularist of the Year award

I’m touching on an issue that is very taboo here: race. While criticism of religion is now fairly passé, if you dare to even remotely question anything to do with perceived wisdom on race you will instantly be branded racist. Oh well, that’s the point here, to challenge the dogmas of political correctness, so here goes.

I recommended Pat Condell for the NSS Secularist of the Year award this year, for having  risked his life in promoting reason and secular values across the world for several years now. I recommended him last year too, but he didn’t win it. He didn’t win it this year either. The award went to The Southall Black Sisters.

Have you heard of them? Me neither. I don’t have time to write a lot on this but I must say there seems only to be a tenuous link with secularism in the work of the “Sisters”. This seems a rather politically correct decision. I would also add that (despite the good work they undoubtedly do) the name “Southall Black Sisters” smacks to me of racism. They say on their site:

“Southall Black Sisters, a not-for-profit organisation, was established in 1979 to meet the needs of black (Asian and African-Caribbean) women. Our aims are to highlight and challenge violence against women; empower them to gain more control over their lives.”

But there is arguably no real need for the emphasis on the “black”. All women should be entitled to fair treatment regardless of colour. If the organisation’s stated mission was to “oppose violence against women” this would of course include black women too. How about standing against domestic violence, full stop? That would be even better and even less biased. (The SBS are “right on the forefront of the feminist struggle in this country”.)

Likewise consider the “Black Police Association”, which Peter Hitchens interestingly referred to as a “grotesque, indefensible body” (read the article). It certainly seems to me very divisive and perhaps even racist. Ask yourself what would happen if some officers decided to form a “White Police Association”.

There is no need to invoke colour in these matters. People can’t have it both ways – they want complete inclusion and yet also insist on delineating themselves by their colour.

This certainly seems a PC decision regarding the award, because Pat Condell has obviously had far more influence in the secular field, and at far more personal risk to himself.

The colours of London are black, blue and grey

If you travel on the London Underground, as I have done frequently for 20 years, you might notice something: from a palette of many different colours, some vibrant and happy, people invariably choose shades of only three: black, blue and grey.

There is nothing to stop people from choosing brighter colours: red, orange, yellow and green coats are available, and many others besides. But these are rejected in favour of tones which match the weather, the buildings and the mood.

The mood is one of tedium. The unpleasantness of being confined in close proximity (nose to nose) with strangers who might be chewing gum, coughing loudly or listening to their music without a care for anybody else. The prospect of travelling to a workplace where office politics count for more than hard work or honesty for the umpteenth time, with no end in sight while the mortgage needs to be paid. The probability of a train jerking to a stop in the tunnel with no explanation of the reason.

It has occurred to me recently that winter in the UK effectively lasts for six months (those being the months from October to March). It’s dull and grey nearly every day and might rain, sleet or snow on any day during these months. In order to complement this weather most citizens of London wear black, blue or grey.

London is afflicted by some of the most hideous architecture known to man. Much of this stands not so many miles from some of the finest architecture mankind has ever created. The only problem is, in clear indication of our decline, the great architecture was built more than 100 years ago (principally during the Victorian era) whereas the monstrosities were erected more far more recently – to be precise, from the 1960s onwards.

It is almost entertaining to consider the name given to the most offensive architecture blighting the skies of London: Brutalism. Brutal to the sensibilities it most certainly is. This architecture was surely designed to be ugly. It is invariably grey, featureless (aside from plain windows) and imposing in a blunt and unrefined manner. It has no redeeming features.

Most people wear clothes to match the buildings. People conform. They even conform in that many pay for painful piercings in places previously considered strange, get irreparable tattoos at the bottom of their backs or adopt liberal leftist views. These are truly paradigms of conformist behaviour posing as the radical.

I took to wearing yellow and orange jeans in my late teens, in an effort to introduce some colour to society. These days I am often in white or cream. It would be nice to see some reds, yellows or greens on the Underground. In Florida they wear such colours to compliment the pastel buildings and the sunlight – but we English are in far more need of them here.

How to ask questions at a public debate

I watch quite a lot of public debates on the Internet and sometimes I attend them as an audience member too. At such debates there is usually a panel of distinguished guests. They have ten minutes or so each to speak on the given topic, then ten minutes to answer. Eventually the debate is opened up to the floor for questions. Questions. Did everybody get that?

Almost invariably at these events, soon after the roving mic reaches the first “questioner”, one has that sinking feeling. It is nearly always a rambling individual who takes a full minute or so to build up to their “point” then takes another five minutes minutes making it then sees fit to add an extended lecture about something totally irrelevant.

Sometimes they have no point at all to make, and simply need to be shut down by the moderator (if they are doing their job properly, which is not often enough). Almost always, the asking of the question is a painful, drawn-out process, full of ego, devoid of respect for the speakers (who have earned their places) and terminally, excruciatingly boring.

Not many things are boring to the reflective mind, so this is an achievement indeed. There is limited time for questions as such events, so these self-indulgent, uninvited lectures by ignoramuses are extremely selfish and unwelcome. You can feel the time running out as they speak, still not getting to their point. Other people even sometimes start booing and ask these questioners to shut up. They didn’t go there to hear them.

Please remember these simple rules in order not to be infuriating at public debates:

1. Be concise!!! Get to your point. A preamble giving context should not be more than 5 seconds long. Your question, following this, should ideally be only one moderate length sentence.
2. Have a point. Engage brain before raising hand. Think it through. Predict the likely answer. Don’t waste everybody’s time with something inane or off-topic.
3. Remember you are asking a question. This is NOT your platform to sound off with a long lecture to show people how knowledgeable you think you are on some given topic that may be loosely related to the discussion. People are not interested. Put that on your own site and they’ll go there if you’re that great. Show respect for the panel and ask a carefully considered question inviting them to teach you (or indeed to reveal that they have not considered an angle of the topic).

It is selfish and extremely annoying when ignorant members of an audience hog a microphone, failing to observe the simple rules above. Moderators should be strict and shut them down and move on, allowing more considerate and intelligent people to contribute instead. They’re usually there, they’re just not as pushy.

Gym music

You notice all kinds of things at the gym. People sitting around doing nothing, sitting on machines so other people can’t use them, grunting loudly and inconsiderately because they can’t manage the weights they’re lifting, you get all types.

I get on very well with the staff, who are very friendly, and most people are okay – just the grunters become annoying. There are all shapes and sizes, too – it’s not all beautiful people at the gym – there are a few of those but it’s mostly people trying to get fit. One thing I would advise though: take your Walkman. I was chided for that today for showing my age – take your iPod.

The music in most gyms is, for the most part, limited to the most cretinous music in society: that with the most irritating melodies and which promotes the worst possible values, optimised to do the maximum damage to human relations and therefore to society itself.

I shall give you some examples from two songs I heard today in order to illustrate my point:

“Before I leave, brush my teeth with a bottle of Jack”

“Trying to get a little bit tipsy”

“Ain’t got a care in world, but got plenty of beer”

“And now, the dudes are lining up cause they hear we got swagger but we kick em to the curb unless they look like Mick Jagger”

“Police shut us down, down”

This song is by a female (I can’t say a lady) called Ke$ha (note the dollar sign which actually forms part of the name, denoting the importance of money while doing no work). It’s a goldmine of depravity with nothing even remotely intelligent to be found in any of the lyrics. This is generally much admired by the “fashionable” youth of today while being much loathed by any more intelligent people who have the misfortune of hearing it. To call the song irresponsible would be an understatement.

If it perhaps topped, however, by another music television favourite: “Bad Boys”, which goes as follows:

“Some people call them players
But I’m far from terrified
‘Cause somehow I’m drawn to danger
And have been all of my life”

“Yeah, the bad boys are always catching my eye
I said the bad boys are always spinning my mind
Even though I know they’re no good for me
It’s the risk I take for the chemistry”

“Addicted to them rougher fellas”

This is about as profound as these lyrics get.

After cases like this, you might find this song, as I do, extremely irresponsible to the point that there should perhaps even be legislation against it. Many young women will see such rubbish as vindication of their poor judgement. It is in fact both idiotic and disgusting at the same time.

The song is by a competition winner so far mainly known for her vastly inferior version of the song famously sung by Jeff Buckley, Hallelujah. She said that song “did nothing for her”.

So that’s the kind of music typically played in gyms, because they have music television on. It’s brainless, but aside from complaining to the management (which you could do) the best thing to do, of course, is to plug in your iPod and listen to something intelligent instead. Perhaps a podcast like this one.

Gesticulation

The greater the degree of gesticulation, the lower the degree of linguistic competence and confidence.

Some are more equal than others

In the case of animal slaughter in the UK, one law applies to Jews and Muslims and another (requiring more humane treatment of animals) applies to the rest of us.

The same double standard also exists when it comes to the benefits system. Bigamy is illegal under UK law, but a man may have four wives under Islamic law (this one-way polygamy is called polygyny). A man who does so in Britain may claim benefits from the British taxpayer for all of those wives, even if they are not his wives under UK law.

You read that right. A man married to multiple women under Islamic law (who are not even citizens of the UK) may claim benefits from the UK government for those wives. Do you think that’s right? Neither do I. But if you live in Britain, you’re paying for it and you have the Labour Party to thank for it.

More reading:

• Jihad Watch
• The Telegraph
• Evening Standard
• Daily Mail

David Gray: Alibi

Oops! The latest free Adobe Flash Player™ is required to view this content.

So much for songs which make light of rehab.

Between Ourselves

I keep doing it – listening to BBC Radio 4. Well, I don’t have a TV licence and there aren’t that many talk stations. There’s the World Service, which is good and offers a more global perspective, but today I tried Radio 4 again.

Now the trouble is, I keep finding that whenever they have these “women only” programmes on, the women keep saying things that are offensive and would be considered outrageous were they said by men (as is commonly the case on the television programme Loose Women). The women seem to be very mixed up – obsessed with feminism, but they don’t really know why. I know why: it was drummed into them like a religion during their formative years.

Today’s Between Ourselves was a discussion between two female columnists. One, Katherine Whitehorn, came across as surprisingly dignified, given the fact she is mainly known for having written an article called “How to Succeed as a Slut”.

The other one, Liz Jones, came across to me as a a very unhappy and confused person. There are some quotes from her writing here. I was shocked when, on air:

• She admitted her method for finding topics to write about was to deliberately start arguments with her husband (“happiness is boring”, she said).
• At one point in the interview she wanted a man to buy her dinner and at another she did not.
• She conceded she was disloyal to her husband.

Naturally I was quite dismayed by some of the things I heard her say (and therefore concerned at her having a column at all), but I write it up her because, as the interview gently proceeded, it really began to find its mark. These two feminist (I suppose) writers – especially Jones – began to admit that they were the product of a confused age, that feminism hadn’t really been as liberating as they thought it would be, that they had felt the pressure to measure their worth through their career, and they didn’t like it. Jones’ life in particular began to look like a catalogue of mistakes, and one could even genuinely feel sorry for her: a victim of the mind-washing of the feminist movement – a movement which, broadly, makes the mistake of confusing equality with identity.

Perhaps Radio 4, ever keen on toeing the PC line, unwittingly did society a favour this morning..

Harry Enfield: Saw you coming

Oops! The latest free Adobe Flash Player™ is required to view this content.

Bel Mooney gives women a bad name

Writing in the Daily Mail today about virtues of crying, divorcee journalist Bel Mooney says:

“What’s more, any woman worth her salt (sorry!) knows that from time to time a few sad sniffs (or even the downturn of a mouth) will do wonders in bending a man to your will.”

I had to read this again to be sure I’d got it right. This is called manipulation, or emotional blackmail, and it’s nothing to be proud of or to be encouraged. It’s hardly good for relationships – yet this woman is supposed to be offering relationship advice for the paper.

She adds:

“Most men will do anything to appease, anything for a peaceful life.”

Just another reason to take advantage of them, then? This writing would be roundly condemned as sexist if it was the other way around. But nothing will be done, because this is a society (even the Daily Mail included, it seems) firmly in the grip of political correctness.

Ms/Mrs, whatever, Mooney also seems a bit mixed up as she describes herself later as being a “sixties feminist” who now argues for traditional roles in the family unit. Well, she got the last bit right, but with this kind of writing I don’t think the Daily Mail should be in a hurry to renew her contract…

Musing on feminism

Listening to the smug tones of Jenni Murray this morning on Woman’s Hour (there isn’t a Man’s Hour – perish the thought!) made me think a little about feminism. I wondered what people like Murray make of the fact that some women admit to enjoying sex with strangers (I guess this is okay because they’re “empowered”), some string men along on dates, taking them for all their money and giving them nothing in return (this is “their right” I guess – like everything else) and others are in the porn or escort business not because they need to be but because they are simply exploiting their best assets (granted to them through sheer chance, by the way) to make as much money as they can from sad and lonely men.

I wondered about these things because these are the kind of points that are taboo in the world of feminism – the unmentionables. You see, we must never forget that women can do no wrong, are the perpetual victims, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

If feminists had a little more respect for the family unit instead of “empowerment”, and a little less paranoia that ordinary men are out to subjugate them, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now. Worst of all, feminists are the enemy of other, normal women, who haven’t got these hang-ups and just want to love a man and have him love them in return without being told all the time that they are supposed to be on the war-path. We’ve got a few unusual women (often victims of sex abuse or other misfortunes) to thank for skewing the outlook of generations of women who followed them.

Yes, things were a little too far the other way before, but now they’ve gone too far in the other direction (this always seems to happen). Feminists: calm down. Stop the campaigning and just take it easy. Find some other bandwagon: not everybody is out to get you. Since there is little sense behind your movement, maybe I can appeal to your liking of fads: feminism is so yesterday….

• How I love the moment in Jerry Maguire when the character Dorothy is at her feminists’ meeting and they are all silenced – refuted – by the sight of true, undeniable, romance.
• It’s interesting to observe how feminists tend to be silent on the topic of Islam (as Pat Condell brilliantly noted), when its men really are out to subjugate them. This is because they experience a conflict of politically correct directives, resulting in inaction.

Nice quotation

“In practice, a “woman’s right to choose” turns out to mean the right to choose not to have any women.”

- Mark Steyn, Killing Her Softly

Steyn’s comment in this context is about the preference for having boys over girls (sexism), but it could equally be applied (and he would apply it) to the decision made by many women to work, drink and party up until their later 30s, fashionably disparaging the idea of the family unit.

These women are going to have a very rude awakening, because, meanwhile, some are reproducing in very high numbers. When these numbers grow sufficiently, the new laws of the land are unlikely to respect the “liberated” views of our feminist friends. It’ll be time for them to rejoin the real world, and it will not be a world they’ll like.

Capitalising on ancestors

My theme here is again an aspect of the political correctness that is weakening society. In these days of constant claims of rights (and little sense of duty), people would do well to remember the following:

We have no right to claim special benefits for ills that begot our ancestors, any more than we have the right to take credit for things they did.

I, for example, don’t even know who my ancestors were, and quite frankly it doesn’t matter. It would be of moderate interest, but that is all. We are all new people.

This is something that is very, very commonly misunderstood in society.

Many people seem to think that because they happen to be from a race or group that may have faced hardship in the past, then they have “credit in the bank” in the present. Possibly, if we are talking about the same individuals. Otherwise no. Everybody should be treated as a new individual who must make their own way in the world, through equal opportunities and their own hard work. Note that – equal opportunities. That does not include practices such as “positive discrimination”, because this is as bad as its opposite.

“Countries” are making abject apologies for things they did in the past. For example not long ago there was talk of “Britain” apologising for its part in the slave trade. Well, actually, many black people sold slaves on to whites, so played an active part in the trade, but anyway this apology is misplaced. Are we supposed to trawl back through the ages as a nation and apologise for all of the wrongs “we” committed?

“We” didn’t even commit them. Is Germany supposed to remain forever wracked with guilt over the rise of the Nazis? The modern day German is no more likely to be Nazi than anybody else. In fact possibly less so: perhaps as a result of this enduring national guilt, this ball and chain around them, Germany has a remarkable record of political correctness and appeasement when it comes to Islam – a totalitarian religion. Yet, of course, the Germans of today had nothing to do with the rise of the Nazis or their crimes.

People are getting carried away with their sense of being aggrieved, even when the purported crimes didn’t even happen to them. They might be 3 or 4 generations back. It’s too much of a “free meal ticket”. This common pre-occupation with “roots” is in my view something of an insult to adopted countries. The fact that you come from a particular race doesn’t mean anything. In fact, it is racist and self-segregating to keep talking about it ad nauseum. Kind of like homosexuals who won’t shut up about it. “Look, nobody cares you’re gay – that’s great, okay – we’ve got the message.”

In the end it is personal responsibility that matters, and this constant leaning on one’s “group” (the revelant ones of whom might be dead now) detracts from this principle. I’m not guilty for any misdemeanours of the British Empire. I wasn’t even alive. I never enslaved people, and I’m not apologising for it. I’m not taking credit for the great achievements of that period either.

“Debts” are repaid. It doesn’t mean we should start repeating attrocities of the past, but nor does it mean others, be it Jews or blacks or anybody else, can exploit them in their own lives now to claim “victimhood”. It doesn’t wash. It’s a harsh message, but it must be said: we’re all new people, and we need to stand on our own two feet.

Acceptance

It is best of all to be accepted for who you are, but it is better to be rejected for who you are than accepted for someone you’re not – and it is worst of all to be rejected for someone you’re not.