HUNTSVILLE, ALA: The Army plans to stockpile equipment in Vietnam, Cambodia, and other Pacific countries yet unnamed that will allow US forces to deploy there more. Undertale is a 10 out of 10 game with many exciting new and fascinating ideas and masterful sound and gameplay design. Unfortunately, certain individuals and games. Jessica September 29, 2014. Sitting at the airport to continue my world tour. I must admit I am clueless about the country but that’s how my. Want to watch this again later? Sign in to add this video to a playlist.Led by the garment and the construction sectors, Cambodia's economy grew 7 percent in 2015, according to a World Bank report. Lately, there have been a lot of Westerners moving to Cambodia or making plans to move to Cambodia. This is partly due to the difficult job market in many Western. Find great deals on eBay for trolls dolls if your too car stickers. Shop with confidence. Funny Signs I Found While Travelling Around Thailand And Cambodia. Cambodia was the 1. Asian country I visited in a year and a half, so I had already become used to seeing funny English signs/posters. Show Full Text. However, on my way from the Siem Reap airport to the hotel I passed by a sign that seemed so hilarious, I couldn’t stop myself from laughing. It was a sign on a barber shop that said: “Asian Hair Cut” and had a picture of a white military American guy in his 3. From then on I decided to take pictures of all the funny signs I would encounter and write an article about it. After 2 weeks in Cambodia and 2 weeks in Thailand, I compiled the 1. P. S. On one occasion I saw a truck that had “My heart will go on” printed on its front window. It looked absolutely epic and it’s such a shame I could not take a picture of it, since it drove the opposite direction. More info: Facebook. Even If They Are 9. Sure They Do Not Have Pee On Them – Kampot, Cambodia. Skip this if you are 9. Please Feed Our Hungry Fish Your Dead Skin – Siem Reap, Cambodia. Asian Hair Cut – Siem Reap, Cambodia. If you ever wanted a really authentic Asian hair cut – that’s the place for you! You Life Will You Good Luck – Koh Samui, Thailand. Pay some money, get holy water sprinkled on you “with monk” and you life will you good luck! Please Do Not Have Meal & Drink On The Stone – Elephant Mountain, Cambodia. I couldn’t figure out which of the 1. What’s more, what if I wanted to have meal or drink? Would it work then? Fish Can Do Massage – Siem Reap, Cambodia. Turns out Cambodian fish can do massage! I’d like full body massage with coconut oil, ma’am. To Lest – Surat Thani, Thailand. I had to Google the definition of this word and still couldn’t understand what it meant. Apparently Thai people know some high- end English! Do Not Throw Coins At Buddha – Koh Samui, Thailand. In case you ever wanted to throw coins at Buddha. Neuro. Logica Blog » NECSS and Richard Dawkins. The Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism (NECSS) will hold its 8th conference this year in New York from May 1. While we are expecting a great conference this year, the opening of registration has been marked by a bit of controversy. Last week we announced that Richard Dawkins would be a featured speaker at the conference. However on Wednesday we withdrew our invitation to Professor Dawkins. This was a difficult and complex decision that requires further explanation, in the name of transparency and open discussion. I don’t expect to resolve any controversies here, just to explain our thought process and answer some of the questions and speculations that have been circulating. NECSS is run by the New York City Skeptics and the New England Skeptical Society, both non- profit organizations. NECSS has its own executive committee, consisting of members of both organizations. I will just say that there were a range of opinions on this matter within the committee, and we came to the best decisions we could, given that range of opinions. When I refer to “we” in this article, I am not speaking for every individual on the committee, just the majority result. NECSS is primarily about science and critical thinking with an emphasis on issues of interest to scientific skeptics. We pride ourselves on being an open and collegial conference. This has sometimes been challenging given the controversies that have strained the skeptical community. Richard Dawkins has been a polarizing figure in the skeptical community for several years. He is a brilliant science communicator. His books have brought many people to rationalism. He is one of the few “rock stars” of our movement. I also greatly respect and appreciate the fact that he is an outspoken public atheist. This is tremendously important, and serves to legitimize atheism for many. Dawkins has dedicated much of his career and effort to charitable endeavors, to make the world a better place. All of this is why it has been very puzzling to many that his social media activity has often not reflected his reputation as a public intellectual. He has famously made tweets or blog comments that have come off as insensitive or worse. I will not dissect each instance here, which is well trammeled territory already. Interestingly, Dawkins himself recently tweeted: “I’m really as polite as my books. Twitter brevity forces you straight to the point, which can sound aggressive.”In any case, the dichotomy between Dawkins the author and Dawkins the social- media maven has proven extremely polarizing within the rationalist movement. Even for an individual, one can find themselves admiring the former while regretting the latter. For further background, over the last 5- 6 years the skeptical movement has been rocked by intermittent controversy over sexism and racism in the movement. This is a complex topic I am not going to tackle or resolve here. Suffice it to say this controversy has caused many in the movement to form various camps, some championing free speech, others social justice. Others have tried to chart a course down the middle, while still others left the movement. In the mix, unfortunately, there have been truly vile trolls who have made threats of violence and rape, serving mostly to radicalize the entire issue. Trolls and psychopaths are part of the new social media reality, a new reality to which we are all still adapting. It is with this (granted very quickly summarized) background that the NECSS committee was faced with the decision of whether or not to invite Professor Dawkins to our conference. In the end we decided that we would be having a brilliant science communicator communicate about science. We felt we could do this without endorsing his controversial statements and positions on social media. We had our reservations about the controversy this would create, but were prepared to defend this decision for the above reasons. Unfortunately, within a week of opening registration many of us became concerned that this might not be tenable. Dawkins retweeted a video (called “Feminists Love Islamists”) depicting an Islamist and an angry feminist (who it turns out is a real person and not just a character) and essentially making the claim that these groups share an ideology. Dawkins tweeted: “Obviously doesn’t apply to the vast majority of feminists, among whom I count myself. But the minority are pernicious.”He included a link to the video. This, of course, set off another round of controversy over Dawkins’ social media activity and the attitudes they reflect. The concern for some of us at NECSS was that by hosting Dawkins as a featured speaker we were making a statement we did not intend to make, a statement that could be interpreted as being unwelcoming and even hostile to many attendees. Since we had just opened registration this created an urgency, because we did not want to “bait and switch” our attendees if we would ultimately decide to reverse our decision to have him at the conference. We felt it was important to make a decision quickly. To his credit, Dawkins removed his tweet in which he linked to the video. He did this prior to learning about our decision. Likewise, we made and executed our decision prior to learning that Dawkins deleted the tweet. I don’t know if this would have changed our decision. On the one hand removing the tweet is recognition that it was a mistake in the first place. On the other hand, it shows he is willing to admit error and make changes. Richard Dawkins has responded to our action. You can read his full response here, in which he states: I do not write this out of concern about my appearance or non- appearance at NECSS, but I wish there had been a friendly conversation before such unilateral action was taken. It is possible I could have allayed the committee members’ concerns, or, if not, at least we could have talked through their objections to my tweet. If our community is about anything, it is that reasoned discussion is the best way to work through disagreements. I wish the NECSS every success at their conference. The science and skepticism community is too small and too important to let disagreements divide us and divert us from our mission of promoting a more critical and scientifically literate world. Obviously there is much to debate and criticize in this entire process. I do want to acknowledge some of the points on both sides and address some of the feedback we have already received. First, many have pointed out that if we had such reservations about Dawkins we should not have invited him in the first place. I only have an explanation (given above) not an excuse. Sometimes the decision- making process fails. But keep in mind hindsight is 2. Dawkins himself also raises the point that another option would have been to privately express our concerns to him. This was actually discussed as an option, as were other options. We were faced with a complex set of trade- offs and in the end did what we felt was best for attendees of our conference. But again this is an entirely fair point. There have been many other points expressed that I do not think are fair. The issue here, for example, is not free speech. Dawkins is completely free to express himself and he has a massive audience and plenty of outlets. Far be it for our humble conference to have any effect on his free speech. That is simply framing the issue in the wrong way. As an analogy, creationists often complain that firing professors who teach creationism is a violation of their free speech, while the real issue is about academic quality control. In our case, the issue is about our right to craft our own conference the way we wish. People have a right to speech, but they don’t have a right to access a private venue for their speech. In fact, whom we invite or uninvite to our conference is the primary mechanism of our free speech. This was ultimately about the character of NECSS and the statement we wish to make (or not make) to our community. Obviously where one sets the threshold for not inviting, or uninviting, a guest is subjective and there is room for reasonable disagreement here. Others have questioned whether or not we condemn all satire, with South Park being brought up as a frequent example. We are not against satire, but this video is no South Park. The video in question, in my opinion, was spiteful and childish and was merely hiding behind satire. That is a judgment call, but making that judgment does not condemn satire as a form. Another frequent point is that we are against any criticism of feminism, as if it is a taboo topic. This is also not true. No topic should be taboo, and we favor open and vigorous discussion of all important issues. In fact, pointed criticism is good for the feminist movement – or for any movement. It was hateful and divisive. Further (as Dawkins later acknowledged) the video targeted a woman who is allegedly already the target of threats and harassment. Context here is important. The tweet and video did not occur in a vacuum. I want to directly address Dawkins’ last statement: “The science and skepticism community is too small and too important to let disagreements divide us and divert us from our mission of promoting a more critical and scientifically literate world.”I completely agree. That is, ironically, the exact reason we were so disturbed by that video and Dawkins spreading of it. I do wish Dawkins would recognize (perhaps he does) his special place within our community and the power that position holds. When he retweets a link to a video, even with a caveat, that has a tremendous impact. It lends legitimacy to the video and the ideas expressed in it. That is why Dawkins is so polarizing. In my opinion, someone in his position, with his eloquence, knowledge, and intellect, with his academic background should be doing everything he can to elevate the level of discussion.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |