Some people have asked what I think about the NECSS decision to disinvite Richard Dawkins after he retweeted a video satirizing feminism.
So here's my take: I disagree with NECSS's decision.
Don't get me wrong, I disliked the video Dawkins posted, and don't think he should've posted it. It made me cringe. I agree with Steven Novella that it was a spiteful and childish video, and not constructive (I'd add intellectually lazy).
But I don't see how that's any different from the many spiteful, childish, not-constructive, and intellectually lazy satires that atheists and skeptics post about, say, Christians or homeopaths.
I also don't see how it's any different from the spiteful, childish, not-constructive language some skeptics use when disagreeing with other skeptics.
The only difference I can see is that the video Dawkins posted was satirizing (radical) feminism instead of religion or pseudoscience. (There's also the difference that it referenced a particular feminist who had been the target of online harassment, but Dawkins didn't know that and deleted the tweet after that was pointed out to him.)
So to sum up: I would be fine with either of these policies:
(1) "We'll disinvite speakers who tweet spiteful, intellectually lazy videos" (this would result in a significantly smaller crop of potential speakers, but I'm not sure that would be a bad thing)
(2) "We won't disinvite speakers even if they tweet spiteful, intellectually lazy videos, unless they say or do something outright egregious, like using a racial slur in earnest"
But I'm not fine with the policy, "Posting spiteful, intellectually lazy videos is fine, unless they're about radical feminism."
Needless to say, I still very much like and respect the NECSS organizers and understand that these decisions are tough.
ETA: Some commenters have pointed out that, after Dawkins learned the woman in the video was a real person, said that although she didn't deserve harassment, she did deserve "mockery, the more the merrier." Which I agree is bad. Encouraging a public shaming campaign against a woman who is already being harassed online seems like a stronger justification for being disinvited, to me (as compared to posting the video itself).
~~
BTW: Comments are welcome, but not rude or vicious ones. I reserve the right to delete comments that don't meet my standard for discourse.
