• It’s not about click-bait; it’s about hating Dawkins

    If you were missing the atheist drama, fear not; the hate machine is still on and works like clockwork. As long as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are alive, armies of haters will still be there to twist their words, and keep the smearing campaign going on. (And, just like they are doing with Christopher Hitchens, they will keep on spreading lies about them after they’re gone.)

    The thing is… this is about two things: hate and envy. These people think they’re the moral beacon of atheism and skepticism, so they can’t stand the whole concept of the Four Horsemen not taking them into account, or the fact that some people don’t hate Richard Dawkins just because he uses Twitter to tweet opinions — like is intended (was intended — sorry, my mistake).

    So what’s new? Friendly Atheist‘s Hemant Mehta did an interview with Center For Inquiry’s new CEO, Robyn Blumner.

    Mehta asked about the anti-Richard Dawkins hate, and why Blumner thinks this happens. She answered that, although Dawkins can say some things some people disagree with, the whining bloggers will throw him under the bus any time for click bait.

    Here’s the interview (the part relevant for this post starts at the 30:30 mark):

    That claim didn’t sit well with the people it was said about, so what did they do? They rage-blogged about how their rage-blogging wasn’t about click-bait. Roth, Myers, Christina and Benson took offense with what Blumner had to say about them. (I guess Blumner won’t be invited anytime soon to the NECSS echo-chamber. Or maybe they’ll invite her just to have her dis-invited for saying anything. Who knows these days?)

    Actually, I do happen to think Blumner is wrong (or was being polite) about this. Hemant also seems to think that way.

    None of the people who’re on the bandwagon to smear Richard-Dawkins do it for click bait. They do it out of hate. Plain and simple, visceral, old fashioned hate. They hate him being some kind of poster boy of free-thought (they think it should be them), they hate he’s actually famous and important (instead of having to do “regular jobs”, like Roth said), they hate his intellectual honesty and the fact that he stands for actual free-thought instead of their post-modernist and anti-Enlightenement obscurantism that they want to disguise as free-thought (and actually had a whole blogging network branded that way for that purpose).

    They couldn’t give a damn about click-bait (“regular jobs”, remember?); they have an axe to grind — strip away what the atheist and skeptic movement got left of free thought, free inquiry and actual skepticism. And that starts by assassinating Richard Dawkins’ character.

    Category: AtheismSkepticism and Science


    Article by: Ðavid A. Osorio S

    Skeptic | Blogger | Fact-checker
    • Couldn’t it be both hate and click-bait rather than having to be one or the other? It seems like they might have found a fairly profitable form of hate.


        Want to get paid doing what you love?


    • Jack Rawlinson

      You basically nailed it, although I do think that some of the lesser malice-mongers at FtB and elsewhere actually are quite aware that their hit rate will rise appreciably whenever they slam their more famous betters. Myers doesn’t give a damn about that, I’m sure – he’s basically in it for the bitter, resentful naked envy – but some of the near-nobodies amongst that crew are clearly thinking of the hits as well as the hate.

    • “Roth, Myers, Christina and Benson took offense with what Blumner had to say about them.”

      I did not hear Blumner mention any of them by name. They must have gone well out of their way to take offense.

      • Shatterface

        I doubt she was even thinking of Benson as Benson is pretty much forgotten now.

        She could have turned her own witch-burning into a learning experience but she just carried on as normal but without a network to back her up.

        • On the upside, Benson lets me comment again now. Perhaps she no longer needs to signal virtue to The Orbit crowd.

    • Richard Sanderson

      Superb piece.

      The upside is, is that their blogs are dying. Their events and conferences are dead. Nobody turns up to their cons, except a few of their fellow white, middle class, university educated SJW bullies. Speaking to someone who turned up at one of their events, he told me there was an atmosphere of hostility and unfriendliness, and of course, a complete lack of excitement or interest.

      Hopefully, NECSS will die next. Painfully.

      • …an atmosphere of hostility and unfriendliness, and of course, a complete lack of excitement or interest.

        This is wishful thinking. Skeptiprom was as hopping as ever.

        • Richard Sanderson

          Not much diversity, there!

    • Shatterface

      This is how the first commentator at Skepchick responded to Watson’s post about how sorry she is the old ‘bigot’ has had a stroke:

      John the Drunkard
      February 11, 2016 at 8:59 pm —
      I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he’d had several unnoticed ones already. The quality of his public statements has gotten so bizarre, so careless, that I’ve suspected some neurological component.

      This is just hate.

    • Ray Muñez

      I just discovered this blog. It is now bookmarked. Good work, Mr. Osorio!