• Hemant Mehta joins mob dragging Dawkins through the mud for tweeting fact about eugenics

    Gee, it must be a day ending in Y, for there’s a new deliberate misrepresentation of something Richard Dawkins said ⁠— the smear campaign never ends.

    Earlier this week, Dawkins tweeted this:

    It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.

    Snowflakes bursted into outrage for, apparently, stating that something morally outrageous is factually possible is some kind of sin or something. Or, how Hemant Mehta, of the not-so Friendly Atheist, put it: Dawkins “put his foot in his mouth” (?).

    LOL. Imagine being this triggered by a statement of fact. A bit like getting mad at someone for saying that people die if you put a rope around their neck and hang them by it.

    The icing on the cake, though, was Mehta’s victim-blaming. People who already hate Dawkins jumped to his throat to mischaracterize his words and had a mob go after him, and Mehta’s response was: Twitter sucks at nuance, so if people fail to uphold the charitable principle or are illiterate, that’s on Dawkins!

    Go figure! Next time the ‘Friendly’ Atheist will excuse Torquemada and say atheists are to blame for stating facts without the proper decorum in the Middle Ages. Also: how dare History books claim that burning people on stakes worked, and they died?

    This is not the first time tweeting a fact has got Richard Dawkins into trouble with the bienpensants, and it would be naive to think it will be the last one. We will know when it happens, though, for Hemant Mehta will bend over backward to justify people harassing Dawkins over the tweeted fact, blame the whole thing on the scientist, and claim Dawkins should stop tweeting however he feels like and get with the program instead.

    See? I know the script by now.

    Category: AtheismPhilosophy

    Tags:

    Article by: Ðavid A. Osorio S

    Skeptic | Blogger | Fact-checker
    • Andrew Wilson

      I never surprises me how people read into Richards tweets, something that is not there.
      They ‘interpret’ his words, rather than actually read what he has written. Richard states clearly what he means. Too many people like to use the colloquial meaning of the words Richard uses, rather than the actually meaning the words he uses, in the context of what he has written.
      Seems like many approach his written words, from that of self-referred positions, rather than that of a logical, trained scientist, that is using reason.
      Richard is not unplugged from the Zegist, but rather questions it, with reason.