Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Sep 5, 2013 in Uncategorized | 8 comments

Is AA calling Moglia a liar?

Richard Dawkins enduring shitty company

Sarah Moglia has a new post against Richard Dawkins, over at the Victim Factory, accusing him of blocking Rebecca Watson‘s name as a speaker for Reason Rally 2012:

As I walked the ten feet back, I couldn’t hear everything Dave was saying, but I heard the name “Rebecca Watson.” Richard suddenly had a very angry look on his face and I heard him almost shout, “No, absolutely not! If she’s going to be there, I won’t be there. I don’t want her speaking.” and then Dave immediately replied, “You’re absolutely right, we’ll take her off the roster. It’s done.” Richard huffed for a moment, Dave continued to placate him, and then he made the video.

So, Moglia overheard a chunk of a conversation and she disliked Dawkins’ scruples:  I wouldn’t attend, condone, support, share or participate any platform having Watson as a speaker. That would look great on her CV, not so good on mine. Some are calling this a blacklist, they’re wrong – blacklist is what they did to Abbie Smith, Justin Vacula and Thunderf00t, to name a few; this, on the other hand, is a matter of principle.

But even even if someone wants to say this is some kind of blacklisting or vetoing, it is her word against Dawkins’ and David Silverman’s (ohh, yeah):

At the time the exchange took place, Ms. Watson had not in fact been invited to speak at the Reason Rally, and that decision had already been made.

American Atheists and Mr. Silverman appreciate Ms. Moglia’s effort to bring attention to the issue of blacklisting speakers despite that in this particular instance she was not in possession of all the facts.

So Watson was never on the roster, but Moglia says Silverman promised to take her off the roster – someone is not being honest here.

By the way, what a curious timing. Just after tablegate exploded in their face, the so-called Skepchicks are starting a ‘new’ drama… with something that happened two freaking years ago!

I guess, time wasn’t of the essence back then.

  • http://sabiduriaheretica.blogspot.com Ylmer

    Could it be a “Dawkinslap”?

    • http://de-avanzada.blogspot.com/ Ðavid A. Osorio S

      Ohh, yeah! Dawkinslap! This post got the best terms coined: “Victim Factory” and “Dawkinslap”.

      Niceeee!

    • Dave

      I’d prefer “Dawk-blocked”

      • http://de-avanzada.blogspot.com/ Ðavid A. Osorio S

        Why?

        • Dave

          It rhymes. And the slap term worked so well for hitch, grafting it onto dawkins feels a bit like every controvercy being called something-gate.

          • http://de-avanzada.blogspot.com/ Ðavid A. Osorio S

            I like it!

  • Clare45

    I don’t think it is very ethical for someone to repeat what they “sort of” heard, when they were overhearing a private conversation. How will we ever know if it was heard correctly or not? If it is true, it really is of no consequence, as Dawkins has a perfect right to speak or not speak if he is not happy with the circumstances.

    • http://de-avanzada.blogspot.com/ Ðavid A. Osorio S

      It is not ethical at all!