Well, no, it depends what you assume. If, for example, you assume he's a racist based on that softball tweet he wrote, you're either a hypersensitive reactionary douchebag who deserves to be offended (and will continue to be offended) or you're so desperate for some dirt on him (or his fans, or "New Atheists") that that's all it takes. You'd be at risk of sounding like those hack writers in Yeez's list, cutting their teeth on Dawk-bashing bandwagon. And that would be unforgivable.
Count me in the second group then. At least three of the most prominent spokespeople for atheism, secularism and humanism over the last decade (I and other call them the New Atheists, you can call em whatever you want, doesn't much matter to me), have been total dicks and have brought nothing new to the party, made no meaningful contributions to society (in terms of their pro-atheist activism), yet for some reason loads of people think they're just great. If ya'll want to be rich white male scientists so much, chop ur balls off, make some powerful friends who can get you into Cambridge, buy some skin bleaching cream and cross your fingers you get lucky. Anyhow, now that Snitchens is toast, looks like Dawkins is trying to one-up Harris in the dickhead department and become New Atheist Dickhead Di Tutti New Atheist Dickheads.
Who gives a shit if was Eid? If he'd literally said "Fuck Christians" on Easter, not a single fuck would be given except by only the most diehard Dawkins haters.
Because it's rude and spiteful to millions of people he's never even met and knows nothing about? Same reason I refrain from atheist anti-Abrahamic rants on Passover and don't get my panties in a bunch whether someone says "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" to me, I just say whatever they said back to them. And I'm a total dickhead who is fond of quoting Buenaventura Durruti's more militant anti-theist sentiments. If I can manage some basic politeness on this topic so can Dawkins.
They could be listening to far worse people than Richard Dawkins.
True, but he still sucks.
The problem at this stage is the perception being created by a load of non-muslims who never once say a word when Dawkins makes similar comments about Christianity. In fact, most of the people now carping would probably join in when he says things like this about Christianity.
Most? You're sure of that now? Assuming Tariq Ali would tweet something as retarded as Dawkins did you really think the reaction from Western "leftists" would have been as bad? I rather doubt it.
Look Dawkins has the historical baggage of being a rich white man from a colonial power who is from a long line of rich white men from this colonial power, who, in fact, directly profited from the colonial exploitation, and allowed Dawkins the privilege he grew up in and benefited from. As someone in a public role, he does, in fact, have an obligation to tread carefully on matters regarding the former colonial subjects underneath his recent ancestors' boot, and those immigrants and descendants of immigrants currently under threat of a right-wing backlash. Dawkins can protest that Islam isn't a race all he likes but to deny it's popularly associated with non-whites originating from particular parts of the globe is a denial of reality. A denial of reality that people with Dawkins' privilege can afford but others can't.
What really annoys me though is how many brown people get suckered into this bourgeois liberal bullshit. Uncle Tariqs I call them. And what annoys me more is they regard it as some sort of actual point of principle rather than a desire to let go of religion and assimilate into the broader Western culture-- I got no problem with that but when you're trying to make strictly personal goals like that into some kind of social movement. Take the Uncle Tariqs of the world as the more pragmatic and less political counterpoints to socialists who support Islamists who would have them jailed at best if they ever came to power where they are.
The minute its muslims they raise the roof, leading a load of idiots to resent muslims because "you can't say anything to offend them, its political correctness gorn mad, yada yada."
True but that can't be helped. People gonna do that no matter what-- that shouldn't be a reason to self-censor and not criticize Dawkins.
Meanwhile muslims themselves have largely ignored him and said very little to warrant this resentment.
Why would that change my opinion of the man and his statements?
because that is his real name, and he has a PhD from MIT
Nuh-uh.
People listen to him because he is a prominent evolutionary biologist, internationally renown popular science writer and former professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.
That's a reason to read his biology books; not hang on his random obnoxious self-aggrandizing tweets, or take his lead in social matters such as secularism, or consider him some sort of hero to the cause of secularism or humanism, which many do, and he most definitely is not.
Topic: Dawkins upsets Muslims again (Scientific achievement)