Here’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s keynote address delivered four days ago in Memphis at the American Atheists Convention. It’s a great presentation, largely highlighting the themes of her new book Heretic, which calls for a reform of Islam. The talk is 45 minutes long, followed by about 15 minutes of Q&A. Especially if you haven’t heard her talk before, do take the time to listen to this:
I am aware of certain benighted segments of the atheist blogsophere that have damned Hirsi Ali for supposedly, in this talk, dismissing the problem of Western gays and urging us to concentrately solely on the more brutal repression of gays—and of women and dissidents—under Islam. I don’t hear that in this talk; what I hear is sympathy for all oppressed people, as well as a call that we pay more attention to the dangers Islam poses for the modern world. On this I agree with Hemant’s take at The Friendly Atheist.
I won’t add more, except to say again that I find it reprehensible to demonize this woman based on out-of-context quotes, her former affiliation with a conservative think tank, or even the political views of her husband. Even if you don’t admire (as I do) her courage and continuing activism in the face of mortal danger, her message is sound and true.
So many haters in the comments. They just want to demonize her. Facts be damned.
//
sub
I don’t think it’s really ‘facts be damned’ so much as the nature of movements composed of very invested individuals. You want everyone in the movement to focus on your priorities because you (naturally and almost tautologically) think your priorities are the most important: if you didn’t think that, they wouldn’t be your priorities.
So you end up with basically good people beating up on each other because one is focusing their efforts on good works which the other thinks should be lower priority than what they focus their effort on. Gays in Islam vs. the US. Or the person focusing on treatment of women beats up on the person who thinks religious skepticism is a more important issue (or vice versa). Its extremely self-destructive and inward-looking; a knife-fight in a phone booth over how to allocate the resources the movement has now rather than working together to grow the movement or working together to make the world a better place across many facets.
The truth is, there are far more good causes than there are people working on them or money to help fix them. We should not begrudge each other our choice of charitable causes but rather support each other when we do charitable work and encourage more good work even if its not the work we would personally choose to do. If one person spends their effort building houses for the poor while another gives their time helping support the teaching of evolution in schools, both efforts should be celebrated. Hirsi doesn’t have PZ’s priorities. That is okay; there is no ‘law of how to accomplish goodness’ that requires the two of them to focus on the same social problems or try and fix all of society’s woes in exactly the same order.
How I wish that your explanation were true, however I think the situation is grubbier than that. Unfortunately it is not so much about wishing to help others and right wrongs as it is about tribalism and othering. The attacks on AHA have a lot to do with the Islamophobia craze that is sweeping the SJW world. Countering oppression of Muslim secularists and women takes a back seat to having a stab at Western Patriarchal power structures and anti-Islam activists are definitely seen as the enemy. Perhaps AHA’s background of genuine oppression and the very real threats on her life are a challenge to the faux victimhood of SJWs who justify much of their rhetoric on the grounds of oppression which looks very whiney and inconsequential by the comparison. Sam Harris gets the same treatment as AHA. Even if Sam Harris where to concentrate on domestic gay/feminist issues I’m pretty sure he’d be just as damned trying to tiptoe through the minefield.
It isn’t about resources at all when you consider that just about the only resource involved is hot air and there’s no shortage of that.
Unfortunately PZ’s priorities seem to be serial misrepresentation and smearing. He does not seem to do anything at all about causes other than dragging down people who do achieve, like Dawkins, Coyne, Hirsi etc. I’m sorry to be so negative, but the online activities of he and his fellows are grubby and vindictive in my experience. The problem is that they are NOT good people in their internet guises.
But, let’s assume as an american citizen, how do you propose to solve the middle east situation? Maybe looking at problems closer to home is more pragmatic?
How does one go about countering the Islam problem anyway? More wars? Haven’t we been there done that? How as it worked out?
I enjoy Dawkins books a lot but half the time when he tweets about some horrific things going in the middle east (staying away from particular events from specific regions), I always wonder what he is trying to achieve.
If it’t something happening in England or Europe… the west in general, then fine, maybe someone will actually listen but otherwise it is pointless. Pointing the finger at other countries is very easy but who there will listen?
Does it matter? Avoiding the issue is definitely not going to help either. The smears against AHA are obviously more about countering “Islamophobia” and so-called racism than about resources. It may not be obvious from this latest episode, but it certainly looks that way taking recent history into account.
Besides,accommodationism has had disastrous effects in the UK and Europe. Governments have tended to cave in to the “squeakiest wheel” Islamic representatives which has hung the reformist moderates out to dry as ineffectual. Disaffected children of immigrants see the success of the hardliners in bullying governments, affiliate with them and become even more radical.
I think that Dawkins would be a lot better off if he stopped using twitter. The character limit on twitter prevents him from expounding a nuanced statement.
The fact that everything he says, if not couched in political language and qualified like a legal document, will be misinterpreted to mean its most evil possible meaning shows how bad things are though. Someone with Dawkins’ history is entitled to the most charitable interpretation of his words, not the least charitable one, which is what he inevitably gets from some quarters.
Yeah, but it’s not just due to Twitter. Sam Harris goes to great lengths to explain himself and qualifying what he says “like a legal document”, but it makes absolutely no difference to his critics. This is why I’m a big fan of just saying what the hell you think, and to hell with qualifying and caveating everything, since it doesn’t do any good anyway.
You may be right about the individual, I don’t follow PZ so simply don’t have the info to render an opinion on that. I do think my point stands as a more general one; internal squabbling over priorities occurs even in good movements and often causes more problems/destruction than it solves. Far better in general to let people do the good work they want to do rather than trying to corral them into doing the good work you want them to do, even if you wholeheartedly believe your good work is more important than their good work.
Since you don’t follow Myers, here’s a link to his latest broadside against Ms. Ali.
http://goo.gl/0w47LQ
No thanks, I just had breakfast. It’s so sad, when he first stepped out PZ was a force for good in the world.
Going bad is what happens if you stay in your boiling pot too long.
[ haven’t read PZ in a long time, but I can imagine that it has happened to him.]
“movements composed of very invested individuals”
. . . whom are motivated by philosophical biases and are, for the most part, utterly indifferent to the facts.
Toss that ‘good people’ dross into the garbage can. ‘Good people’ don’t sit there and beat up good people.
In all the charitable and pro-bono work I did in the black community never once caused me, or anyone I worked with, to lash out at other people and causes. In all my years of being an atheist Unitarian, never once did we (despite being a small church) ever lash out in competition for the things we sponsored and did — within the Church or within the social-justice arena.
Not once. Not one single time.
That’s good people. Doing what you can to help people and build them up.
Not some pretentious jerk who sits on his fat butt all day while writing an invective and hate-filled blog while he’s ripping people and while PRETENDING to make the world a better place.
There’s a difference between disagreeing with the stance of a person on a particular issue and demonizing them over their stance on that issue. That is what has been done to Hirsi Ali, Dawkins, Harris and our own host too to some extent. That is what annoys me about this whole business.
I admire all these people. That doesn’t mean I agree with all they say. Too many SJWs expect (as has been said above) AHA or whoever to agree with them on everything and when they don’t, the knives come out. That’s childish imo.
It’s also the antithesis of the free speech they supposedly champion.
“There’s a difference between disagreeing with the stance of a person on a particular issue and demonizing ”
Well again, once words like demonizing come out, that free speech is not necessarily championed so much. Terms like “knives coming out” are also part of the problem. People are voicing their opinions forcefully, shouldn’t the core of the issues be the focus and not the tone?
Harris is a particular odd case of being very sensitive to having his own words used against him in an argument. He can keep a straight face and pretend victim-hood when dealing with a semi heated debate with Greenwald where the latter simply takes him at face value and assumes he believes what he has written and said for years on a subject. The tone trolling by Harris in such cases is where I lost most of my respect for him. He is an amazing debater when dealing with religious nuts but in all fairness, how much skill does that require? Looking at one’s own biases (his pro gun stance) and some over generalizations about muslims (millions worst than Cheney)… well that would require some introspection and maybe changing his mind once in a while, something that till now appears beyond him. The fact that he basically never criticizes his own country/government is also fairly telling.
I’m just amazed that anyone who cares about their reputation would write an attack-dog blog post based on brief out-of-context quotes containing several ellipses, and then leaping to a false conclusion about what their intent, without bothering to check the wider context.
I’m just glad that there are sensible voices such as Hemant, Prof. CC and Michael Nugent to give the appropriate corrective.
Jealousy, mayhaps?
AHA is successful, along with being an actual victim of oppression. People actually care about what she has to say.
And Nugent’s smackdown is great.
“actual victim of oppression.”
Yes, people are very often jealous of that…
Yes. All that the most strident SJW’s can do is white knight on “behalf” of the oppressed. If an oppressed person dares to speak up for herself, and disagrees with them on ideology, they throw her under the bus.
When people argue ideologies, the fact that one has been oppressed means infallibility and immunity from arguments? That doesn’t appear to make much sense.
You do realize that what you said here is not what muffy said or even implied, right? So what is the point of your comment here?
It seems rather cliche to say it, but since it fits I may as well. Your comment is a classic example of a straw man in every detail.
Well let’s see. Amazon.com sales rank:
PZ’s book: #653000
AHA’s Heretic: #258
Of course that’s slightly unfair, since Heretic is new, but we can also look at older books:
AHA’s Infidel: #2114
AHA’s Nomad: #9880
Bill Oreilly sells a lot of books too, not sure the argument from popularity is the way to go on any subject.
Sure she is courageous. brave and has tons of other virtues. Does that mean everyone has to agree with her 100% of the time?
I’m not particularly impressed with her views on the Iran nuclear deal.
Does that mean I am “demonizing” her?
Aren’t we supposed to be adults here and able to think critically of anyone’s ideas?
Obviously you are referring to PZ Myers in this article. And while I think he is pretty much out to lunch on a lot of things and he surrounds himself with some pretty terrible horde of commentators… I don’t fully disagree with him on the actual content of what he wrote on this subject. But why discuss the actual points, when you can blankly dismiss the whole thing as “demonizing”.
Anyone who thinks Netanyahu should get the Nobel peace prize can’t be above criticism.
Have you read, say, Nugent’s piece on PZ’s post? It is clear that Hirsi Ali explicitly said just about the opposite of what PZ accused her of.
Leave out PZ’s post then (if he did miss-characterized her views, that is bad enough but just means that in the end they were on the same page)?
What about her views on negotiating with Iran (the US should not talk to them)? The PM of Israel being worthy of the Nobel peace prize?
What I am saying is that no-one is above criticism. You can disagree with someone without “demonizing” them, whatever that word is supposed to mean. The term is a cop-out to stop discussion on a subject.
I think that she is wrong about Netanyahu and Iran.
However, PZ and the SJWs outright lie in order to smear her.
Yes, fair criticism of her is entirely allowed. If you want to disagree with her on Iran and Israel then fair enough.
But you can’t complain about the use of terms such as “demonizing” and then want to leave PZ out of it, since the demonization by PZ and similar is exactly what that term refers to.
Unfortunately, too many people on certain blogs are unable to disagree civilly, even if they agree 90% and disagree only 10%. That 10% then gets exaggerated into a condemnation of the entire person.
By leaving PZ out, I just meant that for the sake of argument, take him out of it and look at the other points. I’m not going to try to defend PZ here, he’s done some truly atrocious things in the past and I rarely visit his blog. When I do, I stay as far away as I can from the comment area, that place as to be one of the most vile things out there.
At the same time I have always been truly amazed that people like her and Sam Harris for example get their knickers in a bunch the moment someone calls them out on their outspoken islamophobia. Why not just embrace it?
Taking this definition (one of many for sure):
“Anti-Islamic sentiment or Islamophobia is a term for prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam or Muslims.” then I’d say it clearly applies to them and up to a degree to most atheists and it’s not necessarily a bad thing.
But it seems so disingenuous to play the injured party when a relatively correct label is applied, if you can dish it out, you should be able to take some too.
The main problem at the end of the day is that when you work (or have) with neocons and you are being used to promote more middle east wars… at some point you have to reconsider the approach to. Has the neocon approach to the middle east proven itself to be the best way to deal with issues there? Do we create more problems that we solve? This sort of discussion is rarely even entertained by the likes of Harris and up to a degree Ali.
For Harris in particular I wonder in what universe his positions on Islam will influence anyone who is a Muslim now. So what is the point?
I’m starting to be a bit too long winded for my own tastes. Sorry about that.
Yes, fear of the religion *or* racism against Muslims.
It is possible to fear the religion yet not hate Muslims.
There are ex-Muslims who hate Islam yet do not hate the people.
There are racist rightwingers who conflate the two, and hate the religion AND the people. It seems that SJW’s, in an effort to distance themselves from the racist righties, will, at the drop of a hat, accuse anyone who, rightly so, criticizes Islam, of being a racist Islamaphobe.
But you have to admit this is getting into some pretty nuanced stuff. No one would fear that religion if it had no followers. So obviously there is a bit of fear/hate of both. The question seems to be about how far generalizations are made. When Harris says there are millions of muslims out there worst then Dick Cheney, I can’t help but think the term islamphobe is a good fit. I can’t take him seriously (I haven’t been able to take him seriously since his humiliating debate with Sean Faircloth about guns, the guy who wrote the Moral Landscape is pro-gun for g’s sake).
Coel just explained it to you.
You are conflating everything and saying that if one hates and/or fears the religion, that they must automatically hate/fear everyone who practices it, NO EXCEPTIONS.
That isn’t nuanced.
The problem with your definition of “Islamophobia” is that it conflates different things.
It conflates “”prejudice against”, “hatred towards” and “fear of”, and it also conflates those things towards Muslims (people) and those things towards Islam (an ideology). Further, words ending -phobia are explicitly defined as being *irrational* fears.
The whole aim of the word is to try and shut people up and dismiss what they say. That’s why Harris and Hirsi Ayaan won’t embrace it.
Now, if you had a word for “entirely appropriate dislike of the Islamic religion while respecting people”, then ok.
“Fear of Islam” is pretty well justified. (Ask the ghost of Ataturk.) Look at places where Islamic Law is in force:
Afghanistan under the Taliban
Saudi Arabia
Iraq and Syria under ISIS
This is what the “Global Caliphate” would like to bring to your neighborhood too.
Show me a society under Islamic Law that respects the rights of women, gays, etc. (the people the SJW people want to help). Show me one you’d want to live in.
We should oppose Islam as fiercely, or more so, as we oppose Xian theocratic tendencies.
It’s just the first definition I grabbed off the internet, it’s not “mine” by any means. I don’t get to define words. I would think that to be painfully obvious.
It does conflate a lot of things, so the moment you fall into one of the ‘or’ed categories it could apply.
Still, last time I checked no-one ever has shut up after being called an islamophobe. If that was the intent, it failed completely.
I would say that for an american in the US to live in fear of Islam or muslims… there might be a little irrationality in it. Just a tiny bit. The odds of being hit by lighting are much higher.
I suppose we will all deserve what we get.
“I would say that for an american in the US to live in fear of Islam or muslims… there might be a little irrationality in it. Just a tiny bit. The odds of being hit by lighting are much higher.”
Sure, if you are willing to accept never leaving the country. I travel far and frequently. Paris? London? Madrid? Amsterdam? Copenhagen? Not near enough for you?
” that they must automatically hate/fear everyone who practices it, NO EXCEPTIONS.
That isn’t nuanced.”
I agree entirely that what *you* just wrote there is not nuanced at all.
No, because I was describing *your* argument.
Harris is always willing to entertain a discussion. He will do so in good faith and with due respect. Much of the malice toward him is because he is not afraid of exploring anything, no matter how uncomfortable. He is everything that his more vocal detractors are not.
There are certainly Muslims who thank Harris for expressing what they cannot express while under the yolk of Islam.
Prejudice means “pre-judging” and also typically includes, “not based on actual experience.” This does not reasonably apply to either Harris or AHA. They both have significant actual experience, particularly AHA. Neither are prejudging, in fact just the opposite.
Hatred of Muslims in general is not evident in either Harris or AHA if one fairly considers a reasonble amount of what they have said and written about Muslims instead of considering specific individual comments, often with little, false or no context. Though I think it is entirely possible that AHA, maybe Harris too but particularly AHA, may indeed hate some individual Muslims. I think anyone who thinks that is not appropriate is full of shit and should probably read Infidel and then take a long look in a mirror.
And yet AHA says things like this.
That is AHA talking about her views on reforming Islam during an interview on Fox News. There is no sign of “Islamaphobia” there. And the sentiment expressed here is nothing new coming from AHA. It is very much the same she has been expressing for years. And if there was any venue in which to let her hair down and really show her hatred for Muslims, Fox News was certainly it. Even encouraged by the interviewer she would not even talk bad about liberals.
You don’t have to agree with her on Iran or Netanyahu or what flavor of ice cream is the best. Those aren’t the issue here. The issue here is: do you think it is fair or unfair after watching her speech to characterize it as “dismissing the problem of Western gays” (to use Jerry’s words)?
Very well put, eric. I believe your response here should be cut and pasted into responses to all others who defend these unfair* critics of AHA.
*IMO
I love the way you compare her positions on Iran and Israel to ice cream flavors, clearly these are on the same scale of importance for a public speaker such as herself.
As for your question, I am not convinced either way yet. Even if she had done a “Dear Muslima” style talk, that wouldn’t mean that I would disagree with her. I was entirely in accord with Dawkins when he made the comment that created such uproar a few years back.
Re: Sam Harris and in what universe his positions on Islam might influence Muslims…probably the universe Maajid Nawaz lives in.
Reasonable discussion of bad ideas is a *phobia?
And what would be the point of embracing a label based upon willful misunderstanding and misrepresentation?
But “Islamophobia” is not a “correct label” the way people like Glen Greenwald intend it. The way they use it, it is not intended as a quite possibly rational fear of a dangerous ideology, it is intended to indict the target as someone who holds vile views about their fellow human beings.
PZ’s words.
“Both of these people are committing a kind of rhetorical extortion, using the threat of murder elsewhere as a club to silence those who strive for respect and dignity in their lives. And in that sense both Ali and Cotton are happily exploiting atrocities to justify continued injustices.”
That’s demonizing and it is very obviously not what AHA was saying, although it is mildly demonizing compared to PZ’s usual stuff. Criticise him or his SJW friends and you get accused of being racist, a rape apologist,a sea lion,a libertard. a kook, an asshat or some such as a discussion stopper.
Yeah, what would Aayan Hirsi Ali know about Islam, racism, or misogyny anyway? Especially in contrast to (white, male, privileged, well-educated, well-fed) PZ?
Hear, hear.
Who EVER said that Hirsi Ali is above criticism? I don’t think anyone here said that. I sure haven’t!
I haven’t checked what she said about Netanyahu, but if she did seriously say he should get the Nobel Prize, I would strenuously disagree with that. That said, such a statement is now being used to dismiss everything she says (a previous commenter said he/she couldn’t take Hirsi Ali seriously about any issue simply because of that remark). Now really, which of us hasn’t said something that dumb? Have you never done that? And if you have, why should we listen to you? I know I’ve said my share of dumb stuff.
The point is to listen to her talk and not take things out of context just because you have an animus against her. Also, those who say she wishes to kill Muslims in a war should really read her latest book, Heretic. It doesn’t say that AT ALL!
Just to add, Myers began his smear with the words “Fatwah envy, again”. Considering that the murdered Theo van Gogh had a death threat against AHA pinned to his chest and that she has 24 hour protection, that is ridiculously inflammatory.
That’s our PZ! OK, not ours, but surely someone still claims him.
I love this woman.
I’m an atheist but come from a middle eastern christian family. What she says about Islam is what I grew up hearing about it – from men having sex with little boys, to the goal of world domination, to the murder of women who were raped, and how my family and ancestors were treated under Islamic rule, in an Islamic culture. It is almost therapeutic – it brings tears to my eyes – to finally have a Muslim woman speak truth to power and to white, privileged westerners to whom we could never explain our experience without being labelled racist. It is not racism to point these things out. It is just true.
Excellent comment, thank you for posting that!
Ayaan Hirsi Ali appeared on the Diane Rehm show on NPR last week for what was by and large an interesting and informative discussion until Rehm brought in Linda Sarsour of the Arab-American Association of New York. The discussion turned immediately testy, as Sarsour dropped the bomb that Islam was “a perfect religion” and that she was “personally offended” by what Ali had to say. Damn. I wonder if Ali was aware that Sarsour was going to be on the program or if this was an ambush interview? There are also a lot of haters in the comments section accompanying the interview on the Rehm website, calling Ali a liar among other things. Quite unpleasant.
Ali is entitled to opinions on everything and no one has to agree with all. That would not be possible from anyone. Foreign policy is not her area and she gets a little wacky. But on her main purpose – to educate us on Islam, she has more credibility than all of those who try to degrade her.
I am currently listening to AHA speaking to the Press Club (Washington DC) speaking on reforming Islam.
When she finished speaking, there was only a tiny, spotty, weak applause. I was appalled and disgusted.
She is so right on and so articulate. But they just don’t want to hear it.
AHA is currently answering the question about the retraction of the honorary degree from Brandeis.
She’s lamenting Brandeis’s cave in — and also governments and the press. She is encouraging us all to read this:
Meet the Honor Brigade
Sadly, I think one of the lessons learned reading Internet ideological battles is that we are all susceptible to ‘religious zeal’. Whether defending gods or our personal philosophy we all sometimes get a little self-righteous for our own good. Things are said in heated moments and then the Internet takes those comments like a super-sized version of the LHC, and accelerates them round the planet with ever increasing energy.
People should remember what’s important in their lives before they think their ideas are the most important. About every six hour for most of us (or every two minutes for me) we think about food and drink; not ideas, not religion, not anything of fundamental importance…just good ole ‘put something in my mouth and eat’. Then we can all chill over a cappuccino watching the cats in our boots.
Yep. Every group has its equivalent of the People’s Front of Judea vs. Judean People’s Front. That’s actually what makes it humorous – most of us can relate to it.
After the last Ali post, I purchased her book, Heretic. I’m about 100 pages in, and it’s pretty good, especially for someone like myself who doesn’t have much of a grasp on Islam, or hasn’t read her earlier autobiographical work. The only thing I can find fault with is that thus far she seems to be awfully optimistic on the possibility of Islamic reform. I wish I could be as well, but I see little reason to be so hopeful.
It’s simply not acceptable for someone from another political tribe to say something you agree with.
She’s smart, brave, and funny. What’s not to like? But I fear for her life. let’s hope this all ends well. As someone above mentioned, I am skeptical of her hopes for a reformation of Islam. But, she says it’s a long term goal, so maybe someday.
Atheist Ireland publicly disassociates from PZ Myers. The attack on AHA was the last straw.
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2015/04/07/atheist-ireland-dissociates-from-pz-myers/
Good for the Atheist of Ireland. PZ is simply an ass and that is a final straw.
Poor old PZ, he used to be quite good. Even minor internet fame can be too much for some psyches.
Come home Muffy, we miss you.
Good for them. I fear the lunatics have well and truly taken over that particular asylum.
The problem SJW’s have is that it’s difficult on the one hand to condemn the west as a racist, misogynous, bigoted, imperialist, rape culture, while supporting those oppressed in the Muslim world who perceive the west as a shining beacon of freedom, enlightenment, and justice. By supporting them they are tacitly supporting that concept.
*I meant they fear they are tacitly supporting that concept.
Consistent left-wing support for oppressed minorities in Muslim communities is conspicuous by its absence – too much talk by SJWs about the plight of LGBT people, or apostates, in the Islamic world would draw attention to the fundamentally religious cause of all that misery in the first place.
If they are to continue espousing liberal values whilst defending a religion as inherently conservative and reactionary as Islam then SJWs need to immediately eviscerate anyone who draws attention to the central contradiction of that position. Hirsi Ali is a particularly uncomfortable reminder of the problematic nature of their support for Islam but, conveniently, she’s said some right-wing-sounding things so she can be effectively written off. Too easy.
If you want to see how uncomfortable the whole ‘minority within a minority’ issue makes SJWs just look at the deafening silence that greets people like Maryam Namazie, Irshid Manji and Maajid Nawaz when they call for support from liberals and the left and point out the problems in Islam: the fact that these three people have impeccable liberal, left-wing credentials means they escape the drubbing meted out to Hirsi Ali, but they are nevertheless studiously ignored precisely because what they say about the casual prejudices of much of Islamic society sharply contradicts the SJW’s infantile depiction of Muslims as a downtrodden minority.
If the ‘downtrodden minority’ treat other minorities so horrifically it does damage to the whole SJW narrative. And the way these people deal with uncomfortable arguments is to pretend they don’t exist. So Muslim and ex-Muslim reformists spend their time calling for an honest approach to Islam, and all the while their intended audience have their backs turned.
Yes. I agree. But she doesn’t meet, in all respects, someone’s rather narrow, bigoted and totalitarian world view so it’s time to demonize her.
> I won’t add more, except to say again that I find it reprehensible to demonize this woman based on out-of-context quotes, her former affiliation with a conservative think tank, or even the political views of her husband.
I apologize, but your wording makes it seem as though it would be okay to demonize her based on a current affiliation with a conservative think tank.
Clearly any attacks on her argument based on past or former affiliations with AEI, or her husband or friends or whatever is just plain ad hominem.
I believe any demonization of her or attacks on her character is just lunacy.
No, that’s not what I meant at all. It’s just that everyone think she still works at that place, and she doesn’t. I don’t care who she works for: she’s a liberal and the American Enterprise Institute,to the shame of the Left, was the only place that would hire her at the time. As far as I know, she has an appointment at Harvard and started her own think tank.
The reason I made it an issue, is that her affiliation with AEI is used as sign against her.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2014/11/we-must-retake-feminism-from-our-fellow-idiotic-women/
(and many others)
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=site%3Afreethoughtblogs.com%20hirsi%20ali%20enterprise%20aei&oq=site%3Afreethoughtblogs.com%20hirsi%20ali%20enterprise%20aei&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.15183j0j7
and it’s certainly not just FTB that does this.
And I completely agree that if anything, it is to the shame of the left that she ended up there.
That’s exactly what I’ve been thinking. I’m sure she was formerly not awash in job offers, and I couldn’t see that her values were perfectly aligned with the rightwing folks. She’s incredibly courageous, articulate and principled, and Liberal orgs should have been so lucky to have her in their fold. I think some of the negative comments against her have been more of a political nature (election season coming up and all) rather than 100% truthful.
Late to the party..
The Friendly Atheist on AI dissociating from PZM
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/04/08/atheist-ireland-publicly-dissociates-from-blogger-pz-myers/
Hmmm…about every commenter has the same story. Once thought PZ was just great. Then found they couldn’t follow him down that garden path. Same here.
Jerry, thank you for the opportunity to listen to this great, courageous thinker. I’ve forwarded her speech to all the FB sites I’m associated with, and there has been some interesting discussion. I’ve read all her books, and would love a copy of her speech.