The AHA statement about Dawkins rejects the interpretation that he was pointing to an apparent inconsistency in the current norms of political correctness, while simultaneously providing an example of precisely the confused thinking that he claims he was pointing out. Discuss.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Under the "one drop" rule, if Dolezal dug around and found one of her ancestors was a "person of colour", that would change everything. Show you how tenuous all this is.
End of conversation
-
-
-
Discussion is violence.
-
Silence is violence too.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
You are right. However, such discussions can cause distress when they involve people who are oppressed. I would find it upsetting if someone I respected were to ask “why do we allow gay men to call themselves “men”?”
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Not really much to discuss is there, certainly as far as the AHA is concerned it would seem. There has long been an inconsistency around changing protected characteristics. Dawkins has been sanctioned simply for pointing this out to open the debate.
-
Maybe the truth was already revealed to the AHA board, and no further exploration of the topic was deemed necessary or desirable?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Not much discussion needed. Their statement shows such elementary thoughts as “this tweet could be interpreted in more than one way” are beyond them.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.