I get to talk to someone else at the Global Secular Council on Monday. I don’t think there’s a whole lot of talk needed. I want them to
- apologize on Twitter for their rudeness to me on Twitter
- unblock the people they’ve blocked for asking them questions about the GSC
- answer questions about the GSC
That’s all. I don’t see it as needing hours of conversation. They can just do it.
They just can’t refuse to answer questions about their shiny new project. They’re not the Vatican, and they’re not the kind of organization that wants to model itself on the Vatican. They’re the kind of organization that prides itself on being transparent and accountable – that’s a secular value, as opposed to the theistic values of mystery and unquestionable authority. They advertise themselves, so that means they have to respond to questions about themselves. They want our support, so they have to explain themselves to us. It’s just part of the territory.
But…I’m not sure they actually have that kind of mindset. Check out another picture that they use at the top of another page:
Remind you of anything? it reminds me of the Last Supper.
We really really really don’t need any priestly imagery of Dawkins receiving the adulation of the multitudes decorating our new “Global” projects. We really really really don’t need to make a pope or monarch or hero out of Dawkins. Enough already.
Global Secular Council = Richard Dawkins holding forth for the benefit of an audience of rapt white people over a sumptuous dinner. Right.
Ophelia
Now that we’ve seen one of their apologies, are you really sure you want one?
Well I don’t want an ambiguous or sarcastic or sullen one, that’s for sure. I rejected that offer yesterday.
I agree. This isn’t hard to fix. You should get an apology of the type that Rebecca received, and they should issue a statement explaining what went wrong internally in their organization that made it even possible for the official twitter account to speak down to you, how it happened that people merely asking questions were blocked, and what changes they are going to put in place in order to avoid these things in the future. That’s what professionals and decent organizations do all the time, when some of their employees go rogue.
Or is the problem that nobody, in fact, actually went rogue?
Having just read the earlier thread that made it clear that they were mocking Rebecca Watson, not apologizing, I suppose that I should add that you should NOT get a similar “apology”, Ophelia.
Their Twitter account has too much “personality.” I don’t think you’re ever going to get any kind of proper apology. As it is they are very lacking in professionalism.
So all they do is have fancy dinners, speak to each other of global things (maybe – maybe not speak to each other as opposed to listen to that one AmazingGuy talk) and have an annoying twitter account. Awesome.
Looks to me like Dawkins is playing charades with his guests there and maybe mining the motions of climbing the rigging on an olden days sailing ship.
Is the answer ‘Master and Commander’ there? ‘An Officer and a Gentleman’ maybe? Or perhaps ‘Mutiny on the Bounty’ instead?
There is something very jarring about that picture, and it is not just the image of Dawkins holding court. It really is the dinner, the plush seats, the fine crystal. This is not an image of people in touch with global concerns.
It has an echo of the images of opulence which come out of Davos and the World Economic Forum.
Their PR seems to be conducted entirely without critical insight.
I’d say that everything they’ve done seems to have been “conducted entirely without critical insight.” Seriously, didn’t anyone on the inside look at all this and notice how pompous and self-important it all looks and sounds? They certainly seem to be pretty out of touch with this particular globe. On the other hand they also come across very much like this: