Robyn Blumner, the new CEO of Center For Inquiry, in a podcast interview with Hemant Mehta
I think Richard Dawkins is purposefully misunderstood at times as a way to generate clicks on some bloggers’ page. It’s because his name brings page views and eyes so why not generate a lot of heat around something that is pretty tame if you really unpack it.
Sigh. This again?
Dear Ms. Blumner: Do you really think the way to fame and fortune as a writer is to alienate famous and powerful writers with millions of followers?
Richard Dawkins used to support and publicize my writing. Once I started criticizing him, he stopped. It made a serious dent in my income. And criticizing Dawkins and other powerful atheists for sexism, racism, etc. led to years of harassment, threats of rape and death — which is still ongoing.
People don’t criticize powerful figures for clicks and attention. We do it because we’re trying to make this community better. If you disagree with criticism of Dawkins, address the content. Don’t impugn our motives. This is a hard road, and we don’t take it for fun.
(Amy Roth takes this apart really well, as does PZ Myers and Monette Richards.)
{AD}
Nobody is perfect, and I don’t expect that; but, when someone who is regarded as a “leader” continually goes out of his way to be a misogynist, I’m out.
CFI has jumped in bed with RDF and is now (apparently) championing the “We’re victims of cultivated ignorance” ploy, what nonsense.
Anyhoo, I have cut ties with RDF and CFI both, now – good luck to them, I’ll spend my money elsewhere!
What I find hilarious about this is the unquestioned assumption that Dawkins isn’t doing this for attention himself.
Because that whole “four horseman” thing didn’t help any of those writers’ book sales. Which is why Dawkins is richer than fuck. Got it.
[…] several bloggers expressed frustration with her response to that question. Which is all well and good — I agree it’s a silly notion […]
Hement Mehta compared you and other Dawkins critics to church leaders who “shield information from people” because you didn’t link to his Blumner interview. It’s curious that Mehta doesn’t make the same accusation against Dawkins for his blacklisting of your work. Once he realizes his inadvertent hypocrisy, he’ll correct his post, I’m sure.
Don’t forget the utter lack of self-awareness of the Dawk fanbase, and the anti-FTB crown in general. Accusing you (and others here) not only of controversial blogging for clicks – implying that droves of readers are flocking to such posts – whilst simultaneously gloating at the perpetually imminent demise of FTB as it haemorrhages readers left and right for being divisive.
These silly accusations remind me of when christians go “you atheists just want to sin”.
It’s an obvious red herring.