As many of my friends will know, I’m quite a big fan of Richard Dawkins. But for some reason his website seems to spawn an army of what can only be described as mildly irritating atheists. A particular aspect I frequently bemoan is the necessity of some members to contort a fairly innocuous article into some anti-religious rant. Honestly, it’s unceasing. Take for example this article discussing Neanderthals. Just scroll down to the comments and you’ll be greeted with:
It all just gets you thinking about why the Neanderthals died out. I’ll theorize that their bigger brains found our ancestors’ ravings about our divine origins totally hysterical — and the resulting campaign of genocide simply took the poor buggers off guard.
Funny, yes? Well, no, not when the same joke/theme/structure is applied over and over again. I’ll throw out some more, as I don’t want to single out one individual:
I like to imagine science as a massive guillotine, with creationists frantically trying to stick objects to stop it’s progress. Science may be moving somewhat slowly, but nothing can really stop its progress. (From an article about RNA as a precursor for life on Earth.)
At least one commenter was honest enough to give up any pretence of being interested in the article itself:
When you look at the big picture, Obama has a tough road ahead of him and needs to harvest the support of everyone in America, even that large swath of intolerant, evangelical America, who are Americans none the less. I can’t say that I agree with the choice but I understand it. ( About, um, Quantum computing…)
Maybe it’s a running joke? Or perhaps it’s what you should expect from a website run by Richard Dawkins? Personally, I find these comments serve as an effective cure for insomnia: their repetitive nature will guarantee instant sleep, plus you’ll probably learn something new (from the articles at least). Oh, and one more thing, what’s with Dawkins’ dvd covers:
The option comes from culture secretary, Andy Burnhman, who envisions a future in which the Internet meets the high standards of decency embodied by British television – i.e. [feel free to insert your own witty remark equating some aspect of the BBC with this future internet]. Basically, the whole furore is over children (you know, that demographic unable to protect themselves) and their ability to use this internet thingy to view beheadings; and other material deemed not suitable for children. Burnhumans himself, had this to say:
This isn’t about turning back the clock. The internet has been empowering and democratising in many ways, but we haven’t yet got the stakes in the ground to help people navigate their way safely around it.
Look, we can all see the good intentions behind these proposals. But we don’t need the government to help us navigate – googlemaps is quite capable of this task. Seriously though, it doesn’t take much imagination to see how we can go from protecting children to full net censorship. Television and radio are already hotspots for such intense adherence to authoritarian rules, even if channel four believes itself to be the rebellious child of British television. The great thing about the net is that it allows us to roam freely in these information fields, consisting of porn, search engines (for porn) and everything else. Good times.