> I just don't get this article.
If I understand the article, people who don't "get this article" are the very sort he is describing.
> Not criticize or complain about his dumb tweets?
What in particular did he say that you find "dumb"?
If I understand the article, people who don't "get this article" are the very sort he is describing.
> Not criticize or complain about his dumb tweets?
What in particular did he say that you find "dumb"?
I understand his article. He is bothered that he gets pushback and labeled all sorts of things because of what he writes. It happens. It's life. It's also not new. It's why so many religious/political people chose to create their own publications throughout history to not have to deal with editors/market forces.
Is he incapable of stepping back and understanding that the world is changing? Or looking at the bigger picture? Or thinking critically about the ways this moment mirrors other moments in history?
He’s saying what you said; people write things, fuck off if you don’t like what they write, trans people, right wing people, liberal people, HN people.
And it’s being spun here as if he doesn’t get the point we all just absorbed reading his article.
Very “you made this? I made this.” meme.
Then Dawkins needs to get off Twitter, because it will never give him what he wants. He hasn't found a problem in society, he's found a problem on Twitter. As it stands, he's yelling at the ceiling because it's blocking his view of the sky. He needs to go outside.
Human Twitter posters are members of society. How is it possible to wave off Twitter as not a problem in society when Twitter users exist as part of society?
Don't we all need to do it?
> He hasn't found a problem in society, he's found a problem on Twitter.
The overlap between the two is large enough, that I don't think you can find a non-technical problem on Twitter that isn't also a problem within society itself.
> he's yelling at the ceiling because it's blocking his view of the sky.
Like everyone else.