Talk:Richard Dawkins

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon atheism.svg

This Atheists related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Silverbrain.png
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>

What...the...fuck.[edit]

Okay, I have a few questions about the "Islamophobia" section.

1. Why the hell does RW, a sceptic-oriented site, have in the "Richard Dawkins" article a section condemning him for being unfair to Islam? Even if the points are legitimate how does it serve the purpose of this site to argue that an atheist has been unfairly harsh on religion? I doubt that other articles have sections like "to be fair, many scientists believe in the Christian God" or "most Christians opposed to homosexuality aren't motivated by hate but by sincere conviction so they shouldn't be demonised". So why does this article have a section defending religion from unfair atheist characterisations, and only Islam not Christianity? The only reason I can fathom is that some people here are just automatically taking the opposite side to conservative Christians on every issue even if it's incoherent (and thus ironically motivated by anti-Christian bigotry).

2. I said "even if the points are legitimate" but how the hell are they legitimate? I don't think there's a single reasonable point in this section. Just a few examples:

"Notice how he doesn't say all Catholics to condemn the IRA, or all Jews to condemn Israel's actions in the Middle East"

Because supporting the IRA isn't part of Catholic doctrine, nor is supporting the 21st century State of Israel part of Jewish doctrine. Death penalty for apostasy is, however, regarded by many as Islamic doctrine.

"the defense was the old "Islam is not a race, so this isn't racist""

Yes, how dare Dawkins point out an analytic truth that embarrasses stupid people who don't understand the meanings of words.

"He's generally called Islam "an unmitigated evil," which is in line with his opinion on religion in general"

So what's the problem? That he's not holding Islam to a more lenient standard?

"Christianity used to be the most dangerous religion. Now Islam is."

How can anyone deny that this is true? How many Christian countries punish apostasy with death? 0. How many Christian countries punish homosexuality with death? 0. Meanwhile there are dozens of Islamic countries in both categories.

"Referring to himself as a "cultural Christian" doesn't help."

One would think (and be sadly mistaken) that people on this site would be smart enough to know that Dawkins' personal characteristics have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his arguments.

Do I need to go on? This entire section needs to be axed. Moreover, its very existence in the first place points to a broader problem on RW that perhaps needs to be looked into. Cornucopia (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: "He has hotly contested the issue as to whether Islam was comforting towards individuals, rhetorically answering by saying: "Tell that to a woman, dressed in a binbag, [sic] her testimony worth half a man's and needing 4 male witnesses to prove rape"."

Is RW seriously suggesting that Dawkins is wrong to condemn these practices? I'm getting more disturbed by the minute. Cornucopia (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Since there's been no reply, I will remove the section. Cornucopia (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
You think "Islam is the most dangerous religion"?
The statement "For years we've been calling attention to the deafening silence from moderate Muslims, their reluctance to condemn 9/11, suicide bombings and other atrocities. For years we have challenged moderate Muslims to disown the death penalty for apostasy, and officially sanctioned Islamic mistreatment of women. With a few honourabe [sic] exceptions like Yasmin Alibhai Brown, our appeals have met with lamentably little response." is horrible and should be condemned as it heavily implies that they support these violent attacks. Are you defending that statement only because of doctrine technicalities? Calling "Islam as an unmitigated evil" while referring himself as "a cultured Christian" don't go very well together and it does seem like he's singling out Islam for reasons. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh for fuck's sake.
First, how convenient that this talk page thread goes three days without a response but it takes you all of 43 minutes to revert my edit to the article. I am so sick of people like you, both here and on wikipedia, who feel entitled to ignore a talk page argument for an edit and then still revert the edit. As far as I'm concerned if you can't be bothered to respond on the talk page you have no right to revert.
Second, you didn't address a single point I made. Did you even read it? Yes I think Islam is the most dangerous religion, do I need to repeat myself: "How many Christian countries punish apostasy with death? 0. How many Christian countries punish homosexuality with death? 0. Meanwhile there are dozens of Islamic countries in both categories." Can you name any other religion in the mordern world that punishes apostasy with death?
Also, "does seem like he's singling out Islam for reasons"? Are you seriously saying Dawkins is too soft on Christianity and other religions? Have you read anything he's written? Cornucopia (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, excuuuuse me, princess. I've been out for a few days. I couldn't have caught that myself. Your attitude isn't helping here. At least I actually took some time to respond, and this is what I get, a tirade?
You point out countries ruled by fundamentalist Islam. And? Doesn't make Islam in of itself more dangerous than Christianity, who also house extremists who are also very dangerous people (note Planned Parenthood killings, treatment of transgendered people, Christian terrorists existing, other low-lifes that identify with Christianity). By characterizing Islam as "the most dangerous religion", you're doing its mostly-peaceful decent human beings who follow that religion a disservice. Just as how Christians ignore the worse parts of their religion and focus on the "love and tolerance" part, so do Muslims. Of course, you can criticize Islam, but you have to make it clear what you're talking about or else people may accuse you of Islamophobia. But characterizing Islam as "more dangerous" sounds like a hasty generalization of Islam, akin to a stereotype.
And I still don't understand how Dawkin's attack on moderate(!) Muslims for implying they support 9/11 (by "reluctance to condemn 9/11 and other atrocities") is anything else short of unnecessarily vicious. I'd get highly offended by that statement and I'm not even Muslim.
Not saying he is "too soft on Christianity and other religions", how did I imply it? With the "cultural Christian" comment? Anyhow, all I'm saying is that he apparently singled out Islam and is even harsher on it. Don't take me for an idiot. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 05:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, if you really did just happen to stumble on this article right after I edited it then my apologies. But you must understand that I've had far too much experience of people ignoring talk page discussions for days or weeks and then reverting article edits within minutes to believe it's a coincidence. It's impossible to describe how frustrating and infuriating it is.
There being Christians who want to do violent things to those they disagree with means nothing if they have little or no power. If two people both want to kill you but one is armed with a machine gun and the other with a pillow, the equal murderous intent does not change the fact that the first is much more dangerous than the second. There are no Christian fundamentalists ruling countries with an iron fist like there are Islamic fundamentalists, and that makes Islam more dangerous.
The article itself quotes Dawkins saying that he's only talking about a small minority of the world's Muslims. He's saying that the minority of Muslim fundamentalists are a greater threat currently to peace and security than the minority of Christian fundamentalists. Again, how can anyone deny that?
"And I still don't understand how Dawkin's attack on moderate(!) Muslims for implying they support 9/11 (by "reluctance to condemn 9/11 and other atrocities") is anything else short of unnecessarily vicious. I'd get highly offended by that statement and I'm not even Muslim." Dawkins is an aggressive atheist, and makes a point of the dangers of ALL forms of religious belief not just extreme forms. To claim he's unfair to Islam the burden of proof is on you to show that he has said moderate Christians are not required to condemn Christian extremism.
Also, as I said above this wiki has plenty of articles that sweepingly characterise Christianity. To have a comdemnation of similar sweeping characterisations of Islam makes this look less like an atheist or rationalist wiki and more like a left-wing wiki that sides with Muslims over Christians because supposedly Muslims are an "oppressed group", despite ruling dozens of countries with an iron fist and despite the fact that the typical treatment of Christians in some Muslim countries is inconceivably worse than even the worst treatment of Muslims in most Christian countries.
Finally, even if you're right about that one statement of Dawkins the rest of the section needs to be axed as I pointed out above. Cornucopia (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "I've had far too much experience of people ignoring talk page discussions for days or weeks and then reverting article edits within minutes to believe it's a coincidence." you sure? Hipocrite (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, mostly on wikipedia but also at least once here as an IP and on other wikis as well. I don't edit wikis very often but when I do I usually try to make a logical argument on the talk page. Frequently I wait and wait and there's no response or just a vague response that doesn't address any of the points I made. Then I make the edit and, surprise, it gets reverted straight away. It's unbelievably infuriating. Cornucopia (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
No offense, but my advice for you is to calm the hell down. Try not to contribute to a "raising of the pitch" in any discussion you even hope will end up anywhere constructive. Just saying. And for the record — people are generally "slow" to reply around these parts. And that's perfectly fine. It's not a form of persecution if people are, I assure you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


"He's saying that the minority of Muslim fundamentalists are a greater threat currently to peace and security than the minority of Christian fundamentalists. Again, how can anyone deny that?"

I see the nuance now. I mean, I get it, but I then start thinking about the reality that Christian terrorists still exist (the Quebec shooting; general hate crimes), it's just that the Muslim extremists are more organized and publicized. But then, there's the rest of that paragraph which isn't... eh...

"Also, as I said above this wiki has plenty of articles that sweepingly characterise Christianity. To have a comdemnation of similar sweeping characterisations of Islam makes this look less like an atheist or rationalist wiki and more like a left-wing wiki that sides with Muslims over Christians because supposedly Muslims are an "oppressed group", despite ruling dozens of countries with an iron fist and despite the fact that the typical treatment of Christians in some Muslim countries is inconceivably worse than even the worst treatment of Muslims in most Christian countries."

I suppose so though Muslims are treated as a distrusted minority in the U.S., and this wiki is U.S. centric. While it does matter that Christians are oppressed in other regimes and possibly treated worse, Muslims here are the minority group and are treated as such with suspicion, which also is bad. Maybe a good analogy would be the fear of Japanese people during World War II even though Japan treated China more harshly than U.S. treating Japanese citizens and Japan attacked pretty much every country next to it. Did you see Islam#Critics_and_criticism? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
My response is below. Cornucopia (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

While I wouldn't support "axing" from the article[edit]

...broadly speaking, I would like to consider something along the lines of the following rambling rant (which ended up about 10 times as long as I was going for originally).

As always, these are just my own thoughts, off the top of my head, and regardless of how my words are interpreted, my intention was to rally for a calm and moderate approach to the issues.

And if my words seem confusing at times, that's just because they are.

Now then;

First of all, to state the obvious — theocracy in the form of islamism is a real thing which exists in the world today, and it is a threat to the very idea of an open democratic society. Nobody is questioning that.

Note, however, that Islamism =/= "Islam", or "Islamisation", or what have you. IslamismWikipedia's W.svg denotes the political realization of theocracy under sharia law. In this sense, the relationship between "Islamism" and "Islam" is not unlike that of Dominionism and Christianity.

In the shortest of terms, Islamism does suck major ***** fairly unequivocally. But it's important to grasp the acute difference between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a necessary, though not sufficient, precondition for Islamism. Just like the way Christianity is a necessary, though not sufficient, precondition for Dominionism.

Roughly bunching up Dominionists with Christians generally would be deeply misleading in terms of what Christians are really about. The same goes for Islamists and muslims, respectively.

But even having successfully untangled Islam from Islamism — as such, with the wicked nature of Islamism freshly in mind — the thing one cannot afford to miss here is that Islamophobia is not the "opposite" of Islamism, nor is it "the struggle against Islamism".

Islamophobia is driven by the dynamic duo of fearfulness and hatred, and as such, Islamophobia is an absolute social toxin. Islamophobia is a kind of injustice, and it can never be a vechicle towards less injustice for anyone.

Remember that Islamophobia is just as much "the enemy" (though I hate that terminology) of humanist values and secular democratic society as Islamism is. It's not valid reasoning to present either one as a "fair reaction" to the other.

Islamism is not acceptable to sell as some kind of "warranted reaction" against growing Islamophobia. It isn't.

Islamophobia is not acceptable to sell as some kind of "warranted reaction" against growing Islamism. It isn't, either.

The goal of both movements is the dismantling of the Enlightenment ideal of an open, secular, inclusive, democratic society, the cultivation of fear and friction between groups in society, and (typically) the implementation of — broadly speaking — some manner of religiously conservative (and sometimes overtly ethnonationalist) societal order, be it under the Qur'an or the Bible.

So, as such... Islamophobia is itself not an "inherently false charge", in any sense whatsoever. Islamophobia is certainly not a "myth". But it's not a fool-proof label to apply either — and it can certainly be misused, often out of an honest misunderstanding, but in some instances purely as a rhetorical ploy (e.g., to paint antitheism as being "hateful" somehow).

And — for the record — it's certainly the case that particular New Atheists have made certain statements in certain contexts which blur the lines between a humanist-centered resistance to dogma (and against racism), and a supposed "clash of civilizations".

The latter view being the preferred view of bigots in the Christian and Muslim world alike (read: Islamists and Islamophobes, respectively), and the former view being the preferred view of the vast majority of moderate people who are infinitely more interested in being decent human beings than in being "radical" for any particular cause, regardless of their parents' religion.

As such, Islamophobia is not the ally of any morally serious person. Islamophobia is, in short, just hate. This is one of the many ways in which Islamophobia is fundamentally different from reasoned Atheist opposition to monotheism, Islam included. And make no mistake — the Qur'an is as jam-packed with bullshit as the Bible is, and regardless, Allah doesn't exist. Tough break.

With that out of the way — regarding article content here on RW. While it's something we'll need to consider on a case-by-case basis (as with all things, really), some of our articles on prominent atheists/skeptics could do with some editorial oversight from people who aren't perpetually high on their own angst.

But it's a tightrope to walk, in many ways... I certainly don't support whitewashing, just as I don't support utter character assassination pushed for by fuming zealots (it's not cognitive bias we mean when we say that RW endorses bias).

However, of people like Dawkins — where there's worthy criticism, there's worthy criticism. There seems to me no intellectually honest way around that fact.

The question — to me — becomes what constitutes a plausible overall tone of an article on a person, rather than discussing (somewhat unsavorily) the supposed "omittance" of particular criticisms or not. And the Dawkins article is one which could perhaps benefit from some healthy discussion on that topic.

Because, again, there are cases where a relative lightening of our editorial level of butthurtedness seems perfectly warranted — desireable by our very own mob, even. And for all the hate we're doing our best to expose, we should certainly take care not to befall to witchhunting ourselves... Again — it's a tightrope to walk, allright.

My bottom line is really that: anything which helps to undermine splittingWikipedia's W.svg — chiefly via admitting to the "good" done even by "bad" people, and the "bad" done even by "good" people — is of help not just to the mission, but likewise to the pursuit of atleast minimally conceited outlooks on the world at large.

And we could certainly do more to honor "the good", and to balance it against "the bad". If cherry picking "the bad" is the name of the game, then — in a lifetime of actions and statements both public and private, some done in emotion, some done while under pressure, some done intoxicated, some done out of ignorance — then precisely everyone will meet the proverbial "nazi quota".

Calling people on their particular BS is fundamental — but just don't be too quick to sort them away over it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Reverend Black Percy
Most of what you said sounds reasonable. I actually don't particularly care what position RW takes on religion: anything from "lets treat all religious people even the most extreme fundamentalists with love and respect even if we disagree with them" to "all religious belief of any kind is evil and stupid and should be mocked and condemned" or anything in between is fine. All that I demand is consistency: if group x is condemned and group y is just as bad then y better be condemned as well. And if group y is many magnitudes worse than group x then y better be condemned much more than x.
RW is filled with snide attacks, mockery and outright contempt towards Christians and Christianity, sometimes qualified as "conservative Christianity" whatever that actually means. I'm not a Christian but I recognise a) that Christians should not be subject to unfair treatment or restrictions on their religious freedom and b) that Christianity has played an enormous role in western civilisation and in the development of many of the philosophical and political ideas that have allowed us to reject its hold over us. Condemning Christians while failing to condemn Muslims for the same or worse things would be bad enough for reason (a), but in light of (b) it's particularly destructive and hypocritical.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think if I've seen much on RW defending Christianity from sweeping generalisations. Compare Islam and Christianity on the respective issues of state religion and gay marriage. Moderate Muslims may respect the religious freedom of other religions but they're still likely (with the exception of the most liberal) to support some level of state favouritism towards Islam in their countries. Such favouritism doesn't necessarily violate anyone's basic rights but it does arguably unfairly privilege one kind of religious practice over another and denigrate religious minorities. Moderate Christians may respect the sexual freedom of gays but they're still likely (with the exception of the most liberal) to support keeping legal marriage between a man and a woman. Such marriage laws don't necessarily violate anyone's basic rights but do arguably unfairly privilege one kind of relationship over another and denigrate sexual orientation minorities.
Now, what does it say about RW that it consistently condemns Christians for the very moderate position of opposing gay marriage and then defends moderate Muslims from condemnation, even though they are, on some issues, just as bad. If you compare Muslims on the issue of homosexuality, however, they're much much worse, with an inordinately higher proportion of the world's Muslims supporting legal punishment for homosexuality than Christians. IF you're going to condemn Christians for simply opposing gay marriage you'd better absolutely brutalise Muslims for supporting imprisonment or death for homosexuals. Otherwise you're just demonstrating profound anti-Christian bigotry.
Also, you've said Islamophobia is destructive and the enemy of humanist values but you haven't provided a definition of it. Given the widespread misuse of the term and the fact that it can be defined very differently by different people it's important to be very clear about what you're talking about in this context. And finally, you say Islamophobia involves "the dismantling of the Enlightenment ideal of an open, secular, inclusive, democratic society" but where has Dawkins ever advocated any policies that would amount to that? Cornucopia (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario
"I see the nuance now. I mean, I get it, but I then start thinking about the reality that Christian terrorists still exist (the Quebec shooting; general hate crimes), it's just that the Muslim extremists are more organized and publicized"
And as I said, being better armed (or organised) makes one more dangerous than another group of similarly murderous intent.
"I suppose so though Muslims are treated as a distrusted minority in the U.S., and this wiki is U.S. centric. While it does matter that Christians are oppressed in other regimes and possibly treated worse, Muslims here are the minority group and are treated as such with suspicion, which also is bad. Maybe a good analogy would be the fear of Japanese people during World War II even though Japan treated China more harshly than U.S. treating Japanese citizens and Japan attacked pretty much every country next to it. "
This wiki might be U.S centric by accident, because of systematic bias among editors. But is there any policy that says it's supposed to be?
And even if it is meant to be U.S centric, the U.S is a global superpower with the power to affect and alter Muslim regimes through economic sanctions, military force and other methods. The treatment of people in other parts of the world is thus a concern for the U.S. Cornucopia (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, this wiki is very U.S centric. I think the wiki really should cover a wider view.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 05:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Atheist don't chop off heads?[edit]

I'm sorry but that just reminded me of something called "The French Revolution." there are so many sources that show mass killings and persecution of any religious group by atheists at this time, but this is always thrown back in the closest and locked up.--Rimuru Tempest (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

When did he say that? It sounds just like Dawkins but I can't find the quote. You do have to remember that religious people are the ones chopping people's heads off today though. Christopher (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
"There is no atheist religion. (...) Oh yes, I was forgetting. All those atheists beheading people, setting fire to them, cutting off their hands, cutting off their clitorises. If you think atheists are violent you don't know what violence means" Technically he is mocking while trying to say atheists don't do stuff like that, during the time of The French Revolution religion was banned and for 3 years anyone of any type of faith was sent to a guillotine.--Rimuru Tempest (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
There is no logical reason to expect atheists to act in any particular moral or immoral way. --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The French revolution was a long time ago, the religious people alive at that period wouldn't have been great people either. Christopher (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Whilst it sounds exactly the sort of thing Richard Dawkins would say I still don't see a source. Christopher (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Rimuru I see we're forgetting that the Jacobins weren't exactly badge-wearing atheistsWikipedia's W.svg. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Christopher read the article you will find it. I agree that certain groups were not good but what followed was just as bad. Those that persecuted the Huguenots were killed in turn, but even after they killed the aristocrats and the clergy they started killing many innocent people. I would state that this was shown that it would happen but that should be on the topic of the French Revolution and not on Richard Dawkins. I just wanted to show this in response.— Unsigned, by: Rimuru Tempest / talk / contribs
Anyone who claims all atheists are great people is a moron. That being said, how many murders committed by atheists in the 21st century that can be blamed on their being atheism have their been? Christopher (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm really confused by whatever point Rimuru is trying to make here. Plenty of bad (and good) people have been atheists. So?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think (s)he's criticizing Dawkins' supposed attitude that all atheists are prefect in every way. Christopher (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It's kind of odd, as they have given no source for Dawkins saying it, so if he did say it we don't know the context. Anyway as far as I am aware no atheists are currently beheading people. And if they were doing it - so what? Atheism isn't a religion so it's about as relevant as "Bald men cutting off heads".
(If it were "secular humanists" then it would be different. What with them having a moral philosophy and all.)
So it's still very confusing.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it's sort of a counter-argument to how religion has been accused of propagating violence and it's trying to make a point that atheism also has blood on its hands (there's also the "godless Communism" thing...). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Just a little something I respect[edit]

One's commitment to free speech has nothing to do with speech one already approves of. Good on Richard. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Derka Derka! Muhammed jihad![edit]

An article by The Guardian in which they vaguely quote him "multiculturalism is code for islam" without a source is not a source and is deformation of character. Whoever wrote that part, well done making a baseless deformation. Also, "islamophobia"? Logic, use it please. Islamophobia isn't a word. I'd pay the contributors to this article the compliment in believing that they are intelligent enough not to indulge in such dishonest and delusional non-think. To everyone on this talk section brilliant enough to not give into this very damaging delusion of political correctness, and to defend honest criticism of Islam - I salute you! Lordstevee (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Please put new topics at the bottom of each talkpage. Thank you.
As for Islamophobia and legit criticisms of Islam, both exist, and they are not compatible with eachother. One is inherently right, the other is inherently garbage. I hope this clears things up. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Define "Islamophobia" and give me some examples. Lordstevee (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Lordstevee

"Left of reason" - NOT![edit]

I vehemently disagree with the category "Left of reason" being applied here. Dawkins is far from a reasonable person. His attacks on religion boil down to strawmanning many times, he went way too far in Elevatorgate, he's defended pedophilia, goes into Islamophobia territory, has expressed support for eugenics, has said some racist things about multiculturalism, and often makes rather bizarre rants on Twitter. He does not, in any sense, fall under "Left of reason", because of his insults towards so many different groups of people. There's being a skeptic, and then there's being an asshole. Dawkins is the latter, not the former. I'm removing the "Left of reason" tag. Sailor Haumea (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

He's also stated that race has a biological basis. Not rational. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)