Richard Dawkins is re-vamping his forum \u2013 which he modestly calls \u201ca clear thinking oasis\u201d \u2013 and, because of that, people have been calling him names.<\/p>\n
Dawkins puts this down to there being something rotten in the Internet culture. <\/em>He might have a point to a degree, but, comically, the rather obvious thing he has overlooked is that a forum devoted to atheism attracts a lot of people who are more interested in irrationally venting their spleen than in calm reasoned argument.<\/p>\n From the exchanges with atheists on this blog, I have noticed that most atheists \u2013 all who have commented here \u2013 are emotional atheists: their belief system is based mainly on feeling. When a visiting atheists is asked to explain himself, one is confronted by a torrent of chaotic, emotive, unexamined aphorisms and clich\u00e9s.<\/p>\n Just as he overlooks the obvious reason for Creation, Dawkins overlooks the obvious reason for the name-calling. Here<\/a> is some of Dawkins’ response:<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n A Message from Richard Dawkins about the website updates<\/strong><\/p>\n Imagine that you, as a greatly liked and respected person, found yourself overnight subjected to personal vilification on an unprecedented scale, from anonymous commenters on a website. Suppose you found yourself described as an \u201cutter twat\u201d a \u201csuppurating rectum. A suppurating rat\u2019s rectum. A suppurating rat\u2019s rectum inside a dead skunk that\u2019s been shoved up a week-old dead rhino\u2019s twat.\u201d Or suppose that somebody on the same website expressed a \u201csudden urge to ram a fistful of nails\u201d down your throat. Also to \u201ctrip you up and kick you in the guts.\u201d And imagine seeing your face described, again by an anonymous poster, as \u201ca slack jawed turd in the mouth mug if ever I saw one.\u201d<\/p>\n What do you have to do to earn vitriol like that? Eat a baby? Gas a trainload of harmless and defenceless people? Rape an altar boy? Tip an old lady out of her wheel chair and kick her in the teeth before running off with her handbag?<\/p>\n None of the above. What you have to do is write a letter like this:<\/p>\n Dear forum members,<\/em><\/p>\n We wanted you all to know at the earliest opportunity about our new website currently in development. RichardDawkins.net will have a new look and feel, improved security, and much more. Visits to the site have really grown over the past 3 1\/2 years, and this update gives us an opportunity to address several issues. Over the years we’ve become one of the world’s leading resources for breaking rational and scientific news from all over the net and creating original content. We are focusing on quality content distribution, and will be bringing more original articles, video and other content as we grow.<\/em><\/p>\n The new RichardDawkins.net will have a fully-integrated discussion section. This will be a new feature for the site, similar to the current forum, but not identical. We feel the new system will be much cleaner and easier to use, and hopefully this will encourage participation from a wider variety of users.<\/em><\/p>\n We will leave the current forum up for 30 days, giving regular users an opportunity to locally archive any content they value. When the new website goes live, you are welcome to submit these posts as new discussions. The forum will then be taken down from the web. You will not loose your username on the new system.<\/em><\/p>\n The new discussion area will not be a new forum. It will be different. We will be using a system of tags to categorize items, instead of sub-forums. Discussions can have multiple tags, such as “Education”, “Children”, and “Critical Thinking”. Starting a new discussion will require approval, so we ask that you only submit new discussions that are truly relevant to reason and science. Subsequent responses on the thread will not need approval\u2014however anything off topic or violating the new terms of service will be removed. The approval process will be there to ensure the quality of posts on the site. This is purely an editorial exercise to help new visitors find quality content quickly. We hope this discussion area will reflect the foundation’s goals and values.<\/em><\/p>\n We know that this is a big decision. We know some of you will be against this change. We ask that you respect our decision and help make this transition as smooth as possible.<\/em><\/p>\n We’re confident that these changes will improve the site experience and we look forward to seeing what you do with the new system.<\/em><\/p>\n Many thanks again.<\/em><\/p>\n [\u2026..]<\/p>\n Surely there has to be something wrong with people who can resort to such over-the-top language, over-reacting so spectacularly to something so trivial. Even some of those with more temperate language are responding to the proposed changes in a way that is little short of hysterical. Was there ever such conservatism, such reactionary aversion to change, such vicious language in defence of a comfortable status quo? What is the underlying agenda of these people? How can anybody feel that strongly about something so small? Have we stumbled on some dark, territorial atavism? Have private fiefdoms been unwittingly trampled?<\/p>\n Be that as it may, what this remarkable bile suggests to me is that there is something rotten in the Internet culture that can vent it. If I ever had any doubts that RD.net needs to change, and rid itself of this particular aspect of Internet culture, they are dispelled by this episode.<\/p>\n If you are one of those who have dealt out such ludicrously hyperbolic animosity, you know who should receive your private apology. And if you are one of those who are as disgusted by it as I am, you know where to send your warm letter of support.<\/p>\n Richard<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Update:<\/em> Ruth Gledhill has more on this here<\/a> and here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Richard Dawkins is re-vamping his forum \u2013 which he modestly calls \u201ca clear thinking oasis\u201d \u2013 and, because of that, people have been calling him names. Dawkins puts this down to there being something rotten in the Internet culture. He … Continue reading