Re: AHA withdraws award to Richard Dawkins
I love this last line by the way.
I'm trying to see the controversy in the AHA's withdrawing of some honor it bestowed on Richard Dawkins over something he said. I guess that's the AHA's prerogative, since it bestowed the honor on Dawkins in the first place. But in the end, who cares? I shrug.
Also, I don't know anything about the AHA, only that I associate "humanist" with "atheist" and it always seems suspect to form a group around the idea of lacking belief in something. I do realize that humanist means more than atheist, that it promotes human values without a god and I generally agree with the principle, but the bottom line is this is a private organization with political goals.
And for the record I have no problem with Dawkins' statement, though I don't equate Rachel Dolezal's identification as a black person anything remotely like men who feel
like a woman and vice versa. My understanding is that gender disphoria is biological. Also the tweet in question literally asks us to discuss this issue, which grants Dawkins much latitude, in my opinion. The AHA seems to be posturing for its own sake.
Ezra Klein discusses the cancel culture in a recent column. In most cases, we criticize someone for making a stupid or insensitive remark and our intent is not to "cancel" them, though that is sometimes the end result.
The AHA is a self-interested organization.https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/18/opin ... media.html
Apologies if this article is behind a paywall.