Oh god no. He hasn’t learned a thing. Lindy West is just running circles around him on Twitter right now, an embarrassment that David Futrelle has documented. There are signs of desperation everywhere. He’s grasping at every lifeline the MRAs toss at him: someone tells him that Futrelle is an abuser of women and liar, with A Voice For Men as a source.
@RichardDawkins The author of that article, David Futrelle, is a proven serial liar, and himself a harasser of women https://t.co/PnRhU0GSgm
— Macroagression (@DL502) January 28, 2016
Dawkins’ response is to say that’s interesting. Even smart people are prone to confirmation bias, I guess.
For the quality of argumentation on Dawkins’ side, I’ll just point out this response to me when I praised Lindy West’s arguments.
@pzmyers hahahahahaha, fuck off. you just like her because she’s as fat as you, loser @thelindywest @RichardDawkins
— Gerry Wallington (@gerrywallington) January 28, 2016
hahahahahaha, fuck off. you just like her because she’s as fat as you, loser
And now…you know you’re really in trouble when an atheist starts comparing himself to Jesus.
Jesus de-platformed. Heaven Gazette reports that the Second Coming is disinvited. Jesus had not a single woman or minority among 12 Apostles
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) January 28, 2016
Jesus de-platformed. Heaven Gazette reports that the Second Coming is disinvited. Jesus had not a single woman or minority among 12 Apostles
This is how you know I’m not actually a cephalopod: I’m pining for more limbs to adequately facepalm myself.
Although…even a squid might be feeling a deficiency of palms right now.
Huge sigh…
If all the palms in the world simultaneously palmed all of the faces in world, it still wouldn’t be enough facepalm.
I remember the Cassie Jaye thing, and read Futrelle’s open letter. At no point did he threaten her. But it would be exactly like Dawkins to fall for that lie and AVFM in general hook, line, and sinker…
But of course he didn’t mean anything of the sort! You are totally misunderstanding the brilliant way he uses analogies and metaphors because nobody understands language as well as he does! And now that you have misunderstood his type of English, he can safely put you in the “this person should never be listened to” bin and assume everything you say is wrong forevermore. PROBLEM SOLVED.
Well, at least he hasn’t gone full Beatles and declared himself bigger than Jesus yet.
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but the apostles were basically ancient middle-eastern hebrews preaching a minority religion right? And jesus traveled with a bunch of women too, didn’t he?
Wait… are we only allowed to like people who wear the same size clothes as us now? Well shit. That probably reduces me to something like one permissible friend. Why did nobody tell me of this rule beforehand? Do none of you people know how hard it is to make new friends?! Aauugh!
He’s really climbing up that cross now.
As somebody else said: does that mean he’s approving of all male church leadership?
^I’m sorry, but if I make a serious comment, I might break a tooth.
Go ahead and keep digging Dawkins. Hopefully more and more people and organizations will see how much of a sexist douchebag you are and distance themselves from you.
Oh. He’s listening to Dean Esmay and Paul Elam now.
PZ, you know those giants with a hundred hands, from Greek mythology? They didn’t have enough palms.
Well. He’s finally gone and done it. Except he skipped declaring himself Pope of Atheism and went straight to Atheist Jesus.
I’m feel like I’ve said this a million times on a thousand threads today alone, but I genuinely cannot comprehend how he’s being so gullible. Does he just not vet sources that confirm his biases? Like, at all? Because I thought that was skepticism 001.
This comment may contain trace amounts of exaggeration.
:snort: Of course, Richard. It was White Jesus and the White Dudes*, oh my yes, all the way. Mama Mary was just around to take care of the dirt nap business, and Mary Magdalene, eh, just a whore and a groupie, right? Yeah, sure.
*Auburn hair and blue eyes Jesus, natch. I expect they were all part of the British Invasion, too. I have a near-fatal eyeroll comin’ on…
And, seriously, if one more person says “third wave,” I’m going to beat them to death with a Spice Girl.
“Watch out, son! You slightly mistimed your move through that second wave – the third wave might go over your head!”
I DON’T CARE!
*beats that loving father whose only crime was to teach his son to swim to death with a Spice Girl*
I do feel better now.
To be honest, though, is anyone even surprised? Like, even when I was back in my “douchey pretentious ‘religious people are idiots’ phase”, Dawkins just seemed like an ass, producing the sort of snobby quotes people tend to put on motivational posters with his face.
Dawkpocalips Now!
Also it’s not as if Binx said anything *wrong* in her fiery rant…
Is that Gazette directly from Heaven, or just a rag, written by contemporary people who were not present at the time of Jeebus to verify the composition of his cohorts. Must be remembered that even if [emphasize the IF] he existed, reports of him were written by men who could have easily dismissed females as just fans and not full members. Even the report we do have, however fictional it may be, seems to include Mary Magdalene as pretty prominent figure. Current discussions of just how prominent she should have been recorded (Mrs. Jebus) is neither here nor there and should be disregarded (sorry to be pre-emptive). Still, it is not unreasonable to include females as unreported members of his entourage, who weren’t just passive, but active members in his protests against the Roman domination.
ugh, I’m gonna shoot myself in the foot now: there is something in those stories (allegorically), regardless of his fictional nature. There are valid lessons about rebellion against oppression and bonding with friends. I don;t find it necessary to think he was a historical person. There is value in considering ideals and working toward them no matter how ultimately impossible the complete result.
Here is a future Richard Dawkins speaking engagement.
Trigger warning, it is a drunken Paul Elam and friends being not at all charming. Also, not safe for work.
In not completely unrelated news, Melody Hensley has been finally harassed off Twitter. But she’s probably faking, right.
Yes, I’m afraid the size comment does mean you’ll have to leave unless you are 180cm tall. Sorry all.
Giliell:
The PTSD trolls? Jesus Christ. I keep telling myself I need to start doing something with my never used (as yet) twitter account, to help bolster my shop when it opens, but when I see what goes on there, I just can’t do it.
PZ
Since we’Re all just your sockpuppets that shouldn’t be a problem, right?
The problem is that Dawkins can’t believe that he’d ever do a bad thing, so when all this people are providing him a way out, he has to grab on to it.
There’s a whole Just World thing going on here.
And he’s retweeting crap like this – “The video was hilarious and made a valid point. The woman in question is a Lovecraftian horror. No apology.”
That was after he tweeted this shit – “Yes, she deserves abundant mockery, the more the merrier. But she doesn’t deserve violent threats. Nobody does.” And “I don’t feel the smallest bit guilty. She deserves mockery. But if there’s a risk of inspiring violence, NO NO NO!”
All because a feminist had the temerity to get angry.
Richard Dawkins is a vile human being.
PZ, Ugh
You really are a divisive arse.
Why not just form your own religion and be done, you’re already part way there with the church of SJW and the isolating of anyone who doesn’t share your ideology or correctly utilise the newspeak dictionary.
I hope you realise that outside the in group of yes men (and women!) you’ve accumulated here you’re just seen as a joke and a mean spirited one at that.
I used to actually like this blog, during the Crackergate and so on stuff when I joined it actually had character, went after religious idiocy, visited and dissected the creation ‘museum’, really great stuff but now it’s just an SJW echo chamber with attempts to redefine atheism, something you don’t own by the way and never did.
And no, I’m not a slymepitter, I did briefly look over there after discovering you were trying to bully erv Abbie out of a platform while simultaneously complaining about Richard Dawkins trying to bully Rebecca Watson out of one (both of which I think are fucked up, it’s a misuse of status to bully people with less) and found the slymepitters were actually far worse so didn’t stay.
BINGO! I filled out my card.
adamcolley:
Interesting how there wasn’t even an “Dawkins, Ugh He really is a divisive arse” before you went on to excoriate PZ for being so much worse. When Dawkins is constantly busy helping assholes to threaten and harass women, I’m grateful for the fact that PZ does his best to reduce and eliminate threats and harassment of women for the crime of being women.
“PZ & the Yes Persons” (“men (and women!)” is just a little too cumbersome) would be an excellent band name. All of the songs would be the same, and anyone who sang out of key would be executed on the spot, because there is no disagreement here. No sir (or ma’am).
Could TheDawk shoot people on 5th avenue and still not get disinvited from the Reason Rally? He’s the Trump of the “atheist movement.”
I tried to bully Abby out of a platform? When was this? I had ONE (1) conversation with a conference organizer about Abby: they wanted to bring in a science speaker, and were talking about either her or me.
I advised them to sign her up, for various reasons.
So yeah, it’s really weird to hear this myth going around that I have tried to blacklist erv. It’s like atheists have a persecution complex as pervasive as the Christian one.
@28
We –
Are the Yes Persons!
We always save the day!
And if you think we can’t, PZ always finds a way!
Well, you are a Bad Person, therefore it stands to reason that you have done Bad Things. Surely that’s evidence enough that you’re guilty of everything you’ve ever been accused of?
Hoo, it sure is stuffy in here with our uncritical yes man (or woman) atmosphere!
With perfect timing, Matt Ridley kisses Pope Richard’s ring in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7587/full/529462a.html
Avignon papacy anyone? (More popcorn, please)
But your post is script #3 from the ‘pit. You said nothing they haven’t repeated here many times by them. It is a tell…
Come on! The “you’re fat” card? I thought that you were not allowed to play it once you’re 7 years old or more, and that before that, it was not very well regarded anyway?
@35
While it’s just as mature, “You’re a meanie doo-doo head” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it, though.
Nerd #34
No kidding!
adamcolley’s #25 was almost a Bingo! all by itself.
Comments from guys like adamcolley are just MRA Douchebro Mad Libs.
@25 adamcolley
Ah, yes, so divisive…Whereas Dawkins promoting an anti-feminist arsehole and mocking feminism for utterly irrational reasons is what…inclussive?
So you are one of those atheists that thinks it’s the height of thinkythought and uberreason to just mock religious people endlessly in order to feel superior to them but who recoils in horror when someone tries to promote anything of value that doesn’t involve religious people’s feelings being hurt? Why, you must be a fucking intellectual…
Ok, you’ve said your peace about what you think about PZ and the other people here…do you have anything to say about the things Dawkins is saying and promoting? Anything at all?
Can, uh, someone explain to me in infant-speak what Dawk’s ‘Jesus’ post was supposed to mean? I can’t make sense of it, really.
…fucking hell.
*starts up another verse of What Did the Dawk Say*
@Christopher Wargo, 40
I’m not sure, but I think he’s saying that if people were more like the villainous SJWs of today back in Jesus’ day, then Christianity would never have gotten off the ground.
The weirdest thing about it is that I’m pretty sure it was intended as a criticism.
@Athywren 42, thanks! I got it now.
In regards to the “THIS IS DIVISIVE” thing: Yes, and?
Need I reiterate about how my local atheist group is viciously transphobic because they think my dysphoria is just another “religious experience”?
While our LGBT groups are overwhelmingly christian, I’d rather hang out with god-botherers that don’t try to deny fundemental parts of who I am than all the Anti-SJW atheists im the world.
@25adamcolley
“And no, I’m not a slymepitter,”
It has meaning when someone brings up a topic just so he can negate it
I’d love to take the Dawk’s idiotic comments as an explicit invitation to mock the hell out of him in the way he’s advocating for those awful unladylike hoydens committing the terrible faux pas of not deferring to him, but first I’d like to confirm that he hasn’t had some kind of serious head injury.
Sure, God Delusion was kind of arrogant and facile, but I find it really hard to reconcile his pig-headed irrationality with the elegance and clarity of the books on evolution. Or was he saved from himself by good editors?
Feminace at #41, what Dawkins has been doing in the last twenty four hours should be a whole other song. There is just so much shit happening.
A few years ago it seemed Dawkins was regularly acting like an idiot. It’s now clear that wasn’t true. It’s not acting.
@47 Janine
The song is so long, even I’ve forgotten most of the verses. He just keep fucking talking.
Can’t stop, won’t stop.
PZed @30:
I suspect that this is part of the Slymepit meme claiming you (PZed) got ERV and the Slymepit kicked off of NatGeo.
Vivec@44:
That sucks. I would love to have a local atheism group. Unfortunately, my local atheism group is run by Vacula. Not the same as your local atheist group, but I think I would be as welcome there as you feel at yours.
Given the latest Dawkins Debacle, this Onion piece is perfectly timed: http://www.theonion.com/article/woman-probably-just-made-rape-story-order-get-thre-52255
Dawkins has thrived because of all the people who had never really given atheism any serious thought at all. I used to find his stuff interesting and provocative back when i had just discovered New Atheism. It’s the equivalent of a 6 year old finding Sesame Street challenging and educational. Nothing wrong with baby steps and starting with the basics, as long as you eventually advance.
Dreaming @53
Yeah, like I said, he makes really pithy entry level atheist motivational poster quotes, and did give us the term “meme”, but I think that’s no reason to keep him around like he’s a particularly deep thinker outside of his actual field of study.
It was just a matter of time. Now Dan Perrins is trying to go after Lindy West.
I dunno about ‘keeping him around’, to borrow from Will Self, it feels like he left a long time ago, leaving this Dawkins shaped hole that carries on talking.
I confess, when I saw the first post on Dawkins, part of me thought that him putting his foot in his mouth was hardly news at all.* But once again he has managed to make it newsworthy, by virtue of escalation his and baffling reactions.
It’s almost like reading about the proverbial sack of rice falling over in China. Dull, hardly a surpri.. hang on. Six dead? Three villages destroyed, another engulfed by flames? Just how did that happen?
Dawkins has a real talent for standing out in the crows of MRAs, harassers and general obliviots. But some talents are best left undiscovered.
*Which is not to say that it isn’t a good thing to point out these things nonetheless.
Hahaha. The worm turns! Maybe now that he’s losing speaking engagements he’ll take a long hard look at himself. I can’t imagine what it must have been like hanging out with this creep. You probably sensed even back then what he really was.
brideofeisenstein @ 58:
Unfortunately, if past behavior is any indication, it will just make him double down on willful obtuseness.
From now on I insist you all use Richard Dawkins’ new full title as bestowed by David Futrelle: “Dawkins, a well-respected scientist-turned-embarrassing-atheist-ideologue.”
Say what? I have zero clout with NatGeo, and erv is still on Scienceblogs, although she’s only posting sporadically.
Dawkins released a formal statement via The Friendly Atheist:
TFA goes on to say that if only Dawkins had been allowed to speak, people could ask him in person what he’d intended by tweeting that video. It’s too bad Dawkins has no other platforms available to explain himself and that now we’ll never ever know what his good intentions were…
And there goes the “you’re dividing things” argument again, to which I can only reply with a mighty shrug. I’m embarrassed enough to share a community with him and his MRA cheerleaders. The last thing I want is for people to think I condone his bullshit by association. If that means “dividing our small community”, so be it. I see no reason to inflate our numbers with assholes.
PZ @ 61
I think it’s more likely Adamcolley was refering to your statement that you wouldn’t participate in any conference where Abbie Smith was speaking. I guess he missed the subsquent post where you realised that was wrong and reversed your position.
I never read Mehta anymore, but did he ever comment on the hideous video Dawkins promoted? Not that I see.
Now the only thing he does is present excuses after the fact, and make more excuses for Dawkins. I think we know who’s sucking up to the powerful and popular here.
That statement is totally inadequate and misleading. It leaves out all the bits where he retweets and accepts explanations from known MRAs, and doubles down to justify mocking the woman further. Christ, the title of the video was “Feminists Love Islamists” — it’s not as if there were subtle points being made.
@4 NateHevens said:
I remember the Cassie Jaye thing, and read Futrelle’s open letter. At no point did he threaten her. But it would be exactly like Dawkins to fall for that lie and AVFM in general hook, line, and sinker…
Once again supporting the maxim that any time a headline asks a question, the answer is “No.”
PZ @ 65, I didn’t see any statement by Mehta, either. I admit that I went looking for something on his blog because I was in search of lulz. As usual, he doesn’t get his hands dirty because he thinks it will score him some impartiality points on his blog.
He did finish with a decent point—why did NECSS invite Dawkins in the first place?
In an update, NECSS says they’ll post a reply on their blog tomorrow and in the next SGU podcast.
re Dawkinspeak:
Sheesh, he
Appears he would not have suggested that with a warning he might have apologized for the tweet (by not just deleting it, tweeting an apology for it). It appears that he arrogantly ASSumes that they misconstrued his tweet in order to strike him undeservedly.
I wonder what his reaction would be if he read tweets similar to his (changing a few words to avoid plagiarism recognition on his part). I like to think that he will find them objectionable, and only supporting the originals cuz he wrote them.
If PZ wants to be a squid, this would be one to be: http://sharkzen.com/blogs/shark-zen-blog/84714177-caribbean-reef-squid-infographic
I’m not that familiar with Dawkins but it keeps sounding like he’s working off the same script. Basically it looks like he keeps getting prodded into some random logic loop where he says something riduculous because he’s neglected to consider or empathize with other people. Then he tries to continue to think of himself as a good guy who has not done anything wrong and throws anyone who disagrees with him under the bus. Last he tries to say whatever he thinks will make the mess go away without ever acknowledging (or perhaps even realizing) it’s his mess. Which doesn’t work because all the non-MRA’s are waiting for him to own it. Because a fool who doesn’t own their own messes is implicitly promising to repeat them.
From the Dave Futrelle link, I saw Dawkins repeatedly say that the woman being mocked in the video he retweeted, Chanty Brinx, deserves “abundant mockery, the more the merrier”, and even calling her “vile”. I was curious what she had done to attract such venom, so I looked her up, and all she had done was get into a heated argument with MRAs in public. Yes she was yelling a lot, but she said nothing outrageous. It’s nice (I guess) that Dawkins concedes that doesn’t warrant violent threats, but why does he think it warrants relentless online mockery?
He operates under the assumption not just that he’s a good guy (to be fair, so do most people), but apparently under the assumption that he can’t EVER not be a good guy. So when he says something bad and people object, he concludes that they all must be wrong or bad themselves, because HE couldn’t possibly be bad. And anyone who supports him by extension must therefore also be good guys, no matter how odious they might be. Hell at this point he’s the Donald Trump of the atheist community. An influential wealthy white male who, upon spouting horrible things and getting praised by deranged bigots, becomes MORE popular with his fanbase instead of less.
PZ the first sentence in post #65 should read, “I never read Mehta anymore, but did he ever comment on the hideous video Dawkins, a well-respected scientist-turned-embarrassing-atheist-ideologue, promoted?”
I do not know what all this yes-man echo chamber crap is all about But what I see in this blog is a real teacher who is always pointing out the challenge to think and think about reality to think about you thinking and you attitudes. All of the criticisms he gets and what are posted here boil down to a whine that is a reaction against that challenge to think. Be it a creationist, a libertarian, gun fetishist, MRA or a dictionary atheist not one of the criticisms amount to anything more than they do not want to question their favorite beliefs in any way and to suggest doing so is the worst evil in existence.
I used to think I knew things that no one else could understand then I woke out of my dreaming and now struggle to learn what reality is and how it really works.
keep up the good work and struggle against the pernicious ignorance of these loud fools!
uncle frogy
Professor Dawkins, do everyone including yourself a big favor and STFU! Pump out the occasional book on biology and argue with the Archbishop of Canterbury but forget you ever knew about internet social media.
The thing about the Jesus comparison is that if Jesus were around today, hanging out with an entirely male inner circle, and supporting stupid ideas about women, people around here would rightly be critical of him.
Patrick2@71
THANK YOU. There’s nothing “vile” about calling someone fuckface. He was there for the sole purpose of speaking out against women’s rights for crying out loud. And honestly, he probably goaded her into it than shut up so it would look like she was screaming for no reason. MRAs know exactly what they’re doing.
did give us the term “meme”
He lifted it from Vannevar Bush’s memex. Bush’s memex was a machine for manipulating ideas and connections between them; Dawkins just extrapolated the language a bit. Partial credit at best.
patrick2 @71
See, it’s only non-vile if a man is shouty and angry and the things they are shouty against align with things you are shouty about, too. Shouty-ass Dawkins…
He should retire from public life.
I’m saying “bow out gracefully” to avoid further embarrassment, not “put out to pasture” ageism.
I don’t have enough middle fingers for Dawkins, man. Especially with this repeating pattern of [says awful thing], [acts utterly baffled when called out], and [obvious attempt to cover ass].
It’s not even the first two bits that bother me — it’s okay to be wrong, it’s okay to be confused — it’s the blatant refusal to learn from any of this, the repeated attempts at rationalization and ass-covering and blame-shifting and “What? No, no, I said ABC but I meant XYZ and I’m totally a feminist (just not one of those feminists)”.
Patrick2, 71 and brideofeisenstein, 77
Thirded. To retweet someone calling her a “Lovecraftian horror” just defies any logic. Unless it is the implicit acknowledgement that they find women who are angry on par with Cthulhu, so women better be nice all the time, even to someone who’s attending a talk about speaking out against women’s rights given by someone who published an article about incest being not that bad.
Or else.
Cross posted from Butterflies and Wheels:
Does Dawkins realize that the Chanty Binx/MRA confrontation occurred THREE YEARS AGO?
Does he know that feminists protested the talk because of Warren Farrell’s approving remarks about (certain kinds of) pedophilia?*
Does he think she deserves continued ridicule? After three years?
Has he bothered to look at the screenshots provided by Dave Futrelle? How does he justify his implication that she may have lied about receiving threats?
If he thinks CB is a “vile human being,” what does he think of Sargon of Akkad? Dean Esmay? Paul Elam of A Voice for Men?
He’s got David blocked so how could he know!
The real lesson here needs to be: Question everything all the time, and have no idols or heroes. Too many of us, including me for a while, thought Dawkins was beyond reproach because of his atheism.
This has got to be the lesson. That, and that most atheists are actually assholes and privileged lazy thinkers with a blind spot for the consequences of the fact that gods are not true.
Maybe when something is so transparent, there’s really no need for an further discussion…
Is that what your tweet was Richard?
So, you know, that means it never happened. Science.
What is this supossed to mean? What makes a death or rape threat authentic, the target being found dead and raped? By definition, if the person is receiving death and rape threats, they are authentic…what you really mean here is that you don’t give a fuck that a woman is receiving them.
Fuck off…
Dawkins, comparing feminists to Viking raiders:
Given the valuable lesson that Dawkins has learned from this experience, I wonder what CFI’s stance regarding feminists will be, going forward?
@73 themadtapper: Yep. I agree, I wrote out something a bit longer but decided to keep it short. I don’t think he’s niave like some have suggested. He’s just so invested in some specific ideas that he isn’t looking critically at anything around them. It’s old white male privilege taken to extremes.
@86 Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia: Not sure where the quotes come from but if Dawkins is suggesting the community is too small for divisiveness and arguments about non-scientific thought I wouldn’t disagree. I’m just wondering when he’ll start acting like it and at the very least differentiate his rubbish ideas from his atheism. One can be regressive about many other issues and still support a progressive cause, but attempting to co-opt the cause to support your other issues is not supportive or useful and should always be called out. And that’s just the logical side, without getting into the justifiable anger for misrepresenting an issue important to the other people promoting the cause, etc.
lanir@88,
He means the community is too small for other people to criticise or disagree with him.
Few things of note beyond what’s already been brought up.
The person who made the video that Dawkins approvingly retweeted, and then only incredibly begrudgingly removed the retweet for was Sargon of Akkad, Prominent Gamergator and youtube hatemonger in the same vein as Thundrousfool. (Who, incidentally, has a video that begins with Chanty Binx as the main video on his channel).
Sargon of Akkad currently has some rather telling recent vids:
– “Laci Green is Problematic”, another animated “satire” with a thumbnail depicting Laci Green with enormous cleavage.
– “Buttcheeks vs. Shitlords”, with a picture of Anita Sarkeesian with a beard, in front of an ass wearing a thong, depicted with a speech bubble saying “HARAM!” (This is a term in Islam for things that are “forbidden”, essentially a term meaning sinful. All of this is actually fairly relevant to the video that Dawkins liked).
– “Black Supremacists vs. Macklemore’s White Privilege”. Because of course a misogynist Islamophobe can’t sit idly by and not be a racist douchebro as well.
– “Vote Hillary’s Vag 2016”. Yeah.
So that’s a sample of the kind of shit Sarkon spews out. And that’s just taken from the last month or so of vids. It’s not hard to see that this person is a prolific asshole with a rather juvenile sense of humor and a mile-wide bigoted streak.
Additionally, for others who have seen the video and who may have also seen a video of Chanty Binx: I noticed that the voice they used for the Binx caricature reminded me of Alex Borstein (Lois from Family Guy) or maybe a little of Fran Drescher. Or perhaps just an old woman. I wanted to check and I confirmed that, no, Binx sounds nothing like that. Now, it could just be that it was a male singer doing the best female impression he could, but part of me suspects that they intentionally tried to make her sound like a Jewish stereotype. Anyone else who listened get that impression?
And finally, the full lyrics for the song Dawkins linked to, for those who don’t watch youtube vids. Note: Trigger warning for a rape joke and a pedophilia joke. And general content warning for what you all expect: Islamophobia, antifeminism, and general idiocy. And also ableism. And possibly “slut shaming”, but I can’t even tell what the “Slutwalk” reference was even supposed to be. Jesus, it just has everything. And it is only two minutes long.
————————————————
-I am an Islamist
-And I am a feminist. You might not think we have very much in common.
-But we share essentially the same ideology
-And Muslims are oppressed just like every woman
– I say “haram”
– I say “problematic”
– You say everything’s triggering
– And you say everything’s unquranic, ’cause you are an Islamist
– And you are a feminist
Both: We have so very much in common
– I say “Islamophobia”
-I say “misogyny”
– I blame the Jewish media
– And I blame the patriarchy, ’cause I am a feminist
– And I am an Islamist
Both: A whiny little pair of spastics
(Music stops)
-You know what makes me feel really marginalized, yeah, is when ignorant people remind me that the prophet of Allahuallahwasilla had sex with a little nine year old girl.
– Muhammed had sex with a child!? Oh, that’s awesome! That means that every white cis heteronormative pedophile here in the West is guilty of cultural appropriation! And that’s the real societal problem!
– Oh yeah!
– See? It’s easy when you look at the world through problematic glasses.
– Who knew you and me would get along so well?
(Music returns)
– I say “social justice”
– I say “jihad”
– I say “slutwalk”
– I say “whore, where is your hijab?”, ’cause I am an Islamist.
– And I am a feminist.
Both: We have so very much in common.
(Music ends)
– Hey, do you mind if I rape you now?
– Oh don’t be silly. It’s not rape when a Muslim does it.
Both: *laughs*
– That is a good one.
————————————-
Dawkins approved quality satire. 11/10, superb and insightful. Obviously everyone “offended” must be politically correct with no sense of humor who do not understand true comedy and wit when they see it.
Seriously, I have seen several people already praising it as good satire. The best I can say of it is that the tune is an earworm. It is really only humorous if you find insulting feminists inherently humorous, and if you actually think that the song makes some good “arguments”, enough to actually be considered not just good comedy but also good satire….you would have to be lacking in some serious logic, or be antifeminist enough that you don’t care that none of the song passes the simplest level of scrutiny if it were to be taken even slightly seriously to support this particular sexist subset of the “libruls are helpin’ the turrists” argument.
So congratulations to Richard Dawkins, for showing himself, for the thousandth time, to be an abject failure at logic, skepticism, and caring about anyone who isn’t a white male.
anteprepro, thank you for transcribing that, because I couldn’t bring myself to watch it.
“whiny little pair of spastics” in there too. Nice.
carlie: I knew there were plenty of people who hadn’t seen it (I usually don’t bother watching shit like that myself). I felt the transcript was necessary, so you are welcome. ‘Twas public service. Like most of those public services pertaining to the maintenance of sewers.
And the latest from the mess on twitter:
Dawkins retweets this simple little nugget of intellectual dishonesty:
And tweeted a link to Michael Nugent’s article: http://www.michaelnugent.com/2016/01/29/offensive-satire/
Title of article: “Hate speech is bad. Offensive satire of bad ideas is good. Richard Dawkins was right.”
Why am I not surprised?
And also one last tweeted article link: http://thescepticalpoet.com/2016/01/29/richard-dawkins-in-offensive-twitter-tirade/
A taste:
I confess, I couldn’t help but snicker at the phrase ” published a ten page blog”. Also, much like the original video “satire”, it contains a Dear Muslima argument. No wonder both received a Dawkins stamp of approval.
Bonus Round!
The animator of the song was a youtube account SyeTenAtheist. I did not want to suffer through any more of his fine work. But I was curious about what passes for humor in his neck of the manosphere. So conveniently, I stumbled upon the account’s web store. Fun times.
http://sye10.miiduu.com/rape-culture-t-shirt
http://sye10.miiduu.com/rape-culture-mug
http://sye10.miiduu.com/jesus-in-the-cunt-t-shirt
And then there is sheer gall involved in this mug:
http://sye10.miiduu.com/salman-rushdie-mug
“The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible” – Salman Rushdie.
I am sure justifying juvenile/bigoted humor, harassment of women, and just general rape jokes are exactly what Rushdie had in mind. Sure of it.
Poor Richard, so perplexed by this outlandish notion of actually treating women like equals, instead of paying lip service to the concept. “why oh why do these evil , shrill feminists keep criticizing my obvious greatness!? woe is me!”
I am no longer surprised at his active misogyny, but I am freshly dumbfounded to see that noted atheist RD has now stooped to comparing himself to jesus. Perhaps we could find him a crucifix big enough for his bloated ego?
anteprepro @ 90
That’s probably the most galling thing about that video, it’s just not satire. It doesn’t just fail to make the case for an equivalence between feminism and Islamism, it doesn’t even try. Apparently Dawkins (and many others) is prepared to swallow naked assertions just fine as long as they back up his preconceptions.
I posted on Almost Diamonds that Dawkins retweeted Janet Bloomfield, defending him. As “social media director” of A Voice for Men, Bloomfield fabricated quotes in order to make feminist writer Jessica Valenti look bad, and then bragged about it on her blog. Donald Trump retweets mostly white supremacists. Richard Dawkins retweets misogynists, harassers, and libelers. But of course, he proclaims himself a feminist. Dude, you aren’t even pretending to try.
And, of course, he and all of his lackeys are mischaracterizing it as “they’re mad that the video criticised Islam” rather than “they’re mad that the video targeted a woman who was already doxxed and deluged with threats three years ago and now will be again thanks to this rehash”
Hee, I just noticed that the worlds largest cross is conveniently located in Effingham , Illinois. How very apropos!
bargearse
Exactly! I wonder if he is proud to have evolved into Rush Limbaugh?
For a guy who can never take a joke, Dawkins sure likes to talk down to people about offense.
Remember his response to those South Park episodes?
Dawkins:
This makes no sense.
If the community is too small and too important, he shouldn’t be doing his best to alienate a huge percentage of it in the first place, should he? You can’t punch someone in the face and then tell them we should all get along when they come back at you.
Dawkins is pretty much an MRA. An MRA who calls himself a feminist.
Oh, jeez. Now I’ve got a whole bunch of people triumphantly telling me that Michael Nugent has addressed this issue, and is defending Dawkins, as if that is any surprise. Don’t you know that the original cartoon, Feminists Love Islamists, was just satire, and therefore not a problem at all?
I am so glad to once again be on the opposite side of that craven apologist.
The discussion boards on several Patheos blogs discussing this have exploded with a gigantic influx of slymepitters, GamerGators, and even quite a few A Voice for (absence of) Manners. Congratulations Dawkins, on your new fanbase, way to go!
Nugent? I’m not surprised.
He’s barely above Sargon in quality. They will write page after page of cited and quoted examples of things that they find offensive and outrageous, but they never get around to explaining why those things are problems beyond the claim that it might drive out members or make it harder to deal with other groups. None of which actually demonstrates what the problem with the comments is, and if we are going to lose people like him, Dawkins, ‘pitters and MRAs good riddance.
Re: The “Friendly” Atheist.
I’m not bothered by the fact that his and other places are getting floods of people like I named above. In my view these people of awful character often make our argument for us as they end up showing what they are really like in these places. If they can’t get rid of places like FTB or Wehuntedthemammoth they really are not doing much in the way of long term damage.
@anteprepro
Thank you for posting that. I was considering doing the same and now I don’t have to. My condolences for the lost brain cells.
He later gives examples of satire lyrics from all the people he listed.
What is with people and thinking that withdrawing an offer to speak is such a big fucking deal? By god, an incredible amount of manly tears have been shed on that particular tragic injustice.
The idea that “good satire plays on stereotypes” is baffling. Good satire often involves exaggeration. Hyperbole. I suppose stereotyping could be involved in that, when you are satirizing a group especially, but that is assuming that the only satire involves groups and never individuals. And of course, his argument here is that the “satire” that Dawkins retweeted, by nature of being satire, is presumed to be saying “feminists, don’t be like this” instead of saying “feminists are like this”. That is a really convenient way to perpetually cover a bigot’s ass.
His examples of good, offensive satire:
Tom Lehrer – National Brotherhood Week, a song about everyone hating everyone.
Randy Newman – Rednecks, a song about mocking “rednecks” for being racist.
Randy Newman – Political Science, about how we should nuke everyone because they don’t appreciate America, clearly mocking that kind of politics.
Tim Robbins as Bob Roberts – Complain, about a person who constantly complains, blames society for their own problems, and just wants a welfare handout. (This one is meta, because Bob Roberts is a character, a right-wing folk singer-turned-corrupt politician. The satirical element involved is likely about the character/singer himself).
Lily Allen – Hard Out Here, about sexist standards for women.
Sarah Silverman – The Porn Song, about a woman who has so much sex that she might as well talk about the times when she isn’t having sex.
Tim Minchin – The Good Book, reference to passage in Bible in which a woman must be stoned to death if she doesn’t marry her rapist.
Roy Zimmerman – Let’s Go After the Buddhists, song about how we should fight the Buddhists while actually complimenting them.
Paul Woodfull – Spit at the Brits, passage about “spitting at the Brits”, and then them “blowing us to smithereens”.
Anyone else having a hard time seeing how this video fits in with the other ones? Maybe with the Sarah Silverman one, but Jesus. But look at his apologia for the video’s “point”
Baffling. So much baffling. Can’t even begin.
Naming specific people and groups of people who they hate is hate speech. I wonder how Sargon feels about “feminists” and “Islamists”? Or is that non-specific enough to not matter? And I wonder if depicting real, specific people would make Nugent reassess the video? Well….
Fascinating. So Michael, shortly after calling “naming specific people you hate” a form of hate speech, admits that the video has depicted specific people. He also then enters into a handwringing series of questions involving the ethics of doing so in satire. With no conclusion. His only concluding remarks are to exonerate Dawkins, because when he found it out, he deleted the retweet. Omitted: his incredible amount of pissing and moaning about doing so.
Nugent is utterly baffling. I swear he can write in weasel words. He is pretty blatant about putting in a lot of effort to deliberately reach a conclusion that he wanted to reach from the outset. He is very, very selective about what he decides to care about. And, quite frankly, if he thinks that the video Dawkins retweeted is satire worthy of comparison to others he makes reference to, his own works of satire must be utter shit, or he is far, far more anti-feminist than he lets on.
Carlie@91
Are you kidding me? SPASTIC? And they call Chanty Binx vile just because she called a man “fuckface”? Nobody can honestly say “fuckface” is more vulgar than “spastic”.
(Oh, forgot my preamble to the previous post. That was me laughing at Nugent’s bullshit)
Also, thanks Brony, glad to help and be on the same wavelength as well!
Anyway, because lackwits seem to take this song’s “arguments” seriously:
“Haram” is essentially the same idea as “sinful”. Comparing that “problematic” is about the same as comparing to sinful. Might as well say Feminists Love Christians. But that doesn’t get the anti-feminists salivating quite as much, does it?
Comparing ‘triggering’ and ‘unQuranic’ is completely asinine. (Again, “unquranic” could easily be “unbiblical”). Because triggering is specifically referring to something triggering PTSD, general trauma, or feelings comparable to trauma. When someone says that they are personally triggered by something, that is often personal and means they need to step away for personal reasons. When someone says that something is triggering to people in general, it is usually something that is inherently traumatic. Comparing that to a term that means “against the rules of a holy book” is just fucking loathsome.
‘Islamophobia’ and ‘misogyny’ are similar. They both describe a kind of bigotry. Yay, the song made one point!
Blaming the “Jewish media” and the patriarchy though? Seriously, what the fuck? First of all, “Jewish media” is just an antisemitic meme similar to blaming the liberal media. And you usually blame them for what they (allegedly) selectively cover and don’t cover. That’s it. Whereas the patriarchy is basically a word for systemic sexism, favoritism of males and power given to males. This comparison only works if you think that “patriarchy” is a bigoted concept, comparable to believing in a Jewish-controlled media, and if you think that, like the Jewish-controlled media, patriarchies don’t exist either and are conspiracy theorizing. I have every reason to believe that, in fact, Sargon is anti-feminist to support such an argument. I am baffled that Dawkins and Nugent would go along with it though.
The allusion to Muhammed’s child bride is just blatant trolling and is utterly hypocritical in that it is immediately followed up by having the Straw Feminist argue that “cultural approproriation is the real problem!” over child molestation. First, Straw Feminist just Dear Muslima’d pedophilia (which, incidentally, is a thing Dawkins did, except instead of “cultural appropriation”, it was “teaching kids about Hell”). Second, she did it with the implication that, in reality, child molestation is a big, serious issue. Which it is. Except, rather than actually focusing on that, the video itself is more interested in: 1. Mocking feminists for caring about cultural appropriation 2. Mocking Muslims for their prophet’s child bride from over a thousand years ago. Well, okay then.
And as for the rape joke: I cannot fucking believe Nugent took that shit seriously. No, “rape is okay when a Muslim does it” does not at all resemble a real attitude that exists out there. Go fuck yourself, you clueless git.
And that concludes our examination of the wondrously intricate and robust arguments contained in the finely crafted satire from YoutubeAsshole94031583, with accompanyment from Beyatchesaintshit69roflcoptor. Thanks for reading.
Dawkins has explicitely claimed that he tweets certain things specifically to provoque and shock, but that’s just intellectualism, i suposse…
Way to lead by example, specifically naming PZ, by the way, an impressive feat of lack of self awareness. 9.8 points.
anteprepro I think i’ve found the key to the problem…it’s hate speech when you go after people….it’s not hate speech when you go after women or muslims, if you don’t think they are people.
So they don’t take the time to show why it’s satire, they just toss examples up and claim that it is instead of showing the specific satire in the examples and explaining why the comparisons are satire in the video.
They don’t take the time to say why the comparisons are “worth exploring”, they just say that it is.
That seems to fit the pattern so far. They just say things are good or bad and don’t really say why. Craven is a good characterization.
What the hell is it with misogynist dudebros and their feminism-to-Islam comparisons? I can’t tell which of those two topics they know less about.
It makes them sound like complete idiots.
Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia, #106
Did they really just say that hating someone is hate speech? Holy shit. Dudebros know absolutely nothing about speech, be it frozen or hate.
Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia: Sadly, that’s probably accurate.
Brony: Yes, actually. Good point. He doesn’t really explain what the relevance of the example satirical songs are to the one Dawkins retweeted, nor does he elaborate on what makes satire good, nor justify why the video counts as good satire. Good catch. He kinda missed some important details there…..
Dawkins shots the bed yet again, and Nugent is there to claim that the sheets are clean. What a surprise.
Nugent claims to be a peace maker, but he is one of the most partisan weasels you’ll stumble across. And his consistent apologetics for people who really do foment bigotry, hatred, and harassment speak volumes.
Hmm. Autocorrect disliked my swear.
@anteprepro
That is his pattern from what I have seen. Do you remember that reallllllllyyyy long post that Nugent did that linked and cited a bunch of supposedly awful things that PZ typed or said? It’s nothing but a list of things they don’t like. The closest they get to a demonstration of a problem was in the intro where they suggest that other groups won’t work with atheist groups because of PZ. I also saw the pattern in many other pieces of his.
I’m starting to wonder if it’s a broader than that because I’ve seen it among anti-SJW types and similar commenters here and in other places. And also in more “highly regarded” pieces like the one by Lukianoff and Haidt about the supposedly emotionally oversensitive college students.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
Maybe it’s a standard psychological defense by a more socially dominant group that feels threatened.
They hate Islam, they hate Feminism, therefore by the transitive property, Islam and Feminism are the same thing.
The “it’s not hate speech if it’s satire” schtick comes straight out of the MRA playbook. See for example Paul Elam who, when he gets too much flack for another screed mentally masturbating over violently hurting women, quickly adds a “it’s satire folks!” disclaimer which is as transparent as a sheet of glass.
Also reminiscent of the “it’s just a joke” bullshit from the slymepitter crowd.
I sure miss the days when Richard Dawkins would wax poetically about the evolution of bats, the origin of the first replicator and the tinkerings of blind watchmakers. Now he seems to be content with bashing feminists and comparing American Muslim high school kids to ISIS killers. How the mighty have fallen.
To expand a bit on my previous comment, this is the way I see it.
If you are a part of the dominant social group and the only reason that you don’t like something a historically dominated group is saying because it makes your brain and body feel bad inside, you pretty much have to group with others that feel the same thing and refuse to actually look at the experiences and associated reason and logic of the people telling you why they also feel bad things in their brain and body*. When you have no good reason for offense you go to social conflict rules and limit yourself to abstract hyperbolic emotional impressions of what makes you feel bad and stick with fallacious reasoning. The worst part is how it’s often unconscious because it’s based on role-modeled behavior. I certainly feel shitty about the me that used to exist and their remnants…
*I’m really loving what I’m reading about the neurobiology and neuroanatomy of emotion right now.
Brony @ 107
That’s because there’s no possible way they could say why they’re worth exploring. It’s a bunch of juxtaposed non sequiturs, a nonsense nursery rhyme for so-called adults. I don’t expect much from anyone who’d pay attention to Sargon but I’m genuinely baffled as to how anyone could see this as satire.
@bargearse
I have some ideas since I come from the same white masculine male group that makes up most of the asshats, but it’s not my argument to make. If they really cared about persuasion instead of saying things that simply make one another feel good they would take three examples of satire, outline the critical features, explain why they were satirical, and apply that to the video. Of course even then they may still be xenophobic bigots because as a form of humor that displays the way humor is a weapon there are right and wrong ways to do satire.
@Brony, 118
So… I get that it’s not your argument to make, but I’m painfully curious now, because I’ve been torturing my brains trying to come up with something that sounds like it resembles a sensible stance, and I keep failing.
I must be fascinating.
https://twitter.com/GadSaad/status/693229004741054464
PZ, #120
No relation, I promise.
Are you sure? Have you ever had any anal polyps removed? Do you know where they are?
@Athywren
Well…there may be what they really find satirical/humorous, and what would be an acceptable excuse to others. Since I don’t know what is in their heads for sure I have the video, text and what we have experienced of them so far. Satire at the least has these characteristics:
*The elements shared between the reality and the caricature.
*The distortions from the reality and their meaning for some or all of those elements.
*The social message or lesson or message that the work is intending to communicate.
A big chunk of humor is meant to defuse negative emotion such as anger, fear and disgust. Humor is found in the juxtaposition itself, and is the thing that stands out most intensely. It’s the comparison/contrast (comparison here) and the way it twists the emotions like “letting off steam”. By seeing two things they feel negatively about getting compared they feel better about them. Beyond that it gets a little subjective and I’m still thinking about it, opinions are welcome.
It starts right off directly lining up Islamists with Feminists. It says “an Islamist/Feminist”, but the work is clearly meant to represent a group. From there the patterns can be lined up. I would wager that what they find most funny is the simple comparison of the feminists that they feel strongly about with an offensive element since in all likelihood like many sorts of bigoted and xenophobic humor this is supposed to insult us as it makes them feel better. It’s only funny to them, and that is BY DESIGN (evolution and social conflict). There is a “message/lesson” in there and they match things we have been hearing out of that side of the rift/culture, but it’s bullshit like usual.
I think that it’s funny to them because they believe that it will upset us to see feminism compared to Islamism, and the elements of similarity make them feel like they are “on the right track” emotionally speaking. They clearly don’t have any idea what they are criticizing beyond their shallow emotional impression of how they experience these things though. It’s probably mostly the use of the video as a social dominance display via insulting connection between islamists and feminists and our reaction to it that makes them laugh though. They are most likely using Islamists to insult feminists, but there is a lot going on. Fortunately explaining a joke ruins it (this did require a bottle of Thunderbird to get through though, so by all means analyze away).
Key: X) element 1A/element 1B (characteristic compared, think of each of these as things they are fearful/angry/disgusted by)
1) faux Islamist/faux Feminist (perception of identity)
-Why funny: two groups they fear conveniently compared, “two birds with one stone” takes tension away.
2) Haram/Problematic (perception of words that indicate something is bad to them)
-Why funny: the idea of elements of culture containing sexist or misogynistic elements is equated with something being religiously forbidden. It’s funny because they see “problematic” as equivalent to something religiously forbidden.
3) Unquranic/Triggering (perception of reasons for the thing being bad)
-Why funny: They see the idea of “triggering” (trauma triggering I assume) as the same as being offended by something that violates a religious taboo.
*note the switch from Islamist/Feminist to Feminist/Islamist in pattern, possibly meaningless*
*statement of similarity between characters, by the characters*
4) Islamophobia/Misogyny (perception of characterizations of the people they oppose)
-Why funny: They see both terms as equivalent in usage, in this case this is what they see the people say about them and why they criticize them (either islamophobic (fear) or misogynistic (hate)).
5) Jewish media/Patriarchy (perception of people/social structures to blame for their problems)
-Why funny: This one is a bit more complicated. There are people among the MRAs that do think there is a “Jewish conspiracy” of sorts (they are certainly anti-Semitic), but it’s more likely that Sargon thinks that the whole “jewish media” thing is ridiculous and they just want to make the patriarchy look like a conspiracy theory.
*statement by the characters that they are “whiny spastics”*
-Why funny: ablism. Because motor disorders are funny aparently. I can’t find it in myself to take it personally though. This is seriously ignorant and immature crap and ignorance can be used very effectively.
6) Statement by the faux Muslim that they feel marginalized when people point out Muhammad had sex with a 9-year old girl/…
…/Statement by the faux Feminist indicating that they don’t care about the pedophilia (and are presented as happy about it) and instead focus on that the feeling of marginalization. The reason given is that cis-heteronormative people are guilty culturally appropriating, something(a), as the “real societal problem”.
-Why funny: They feel negatively about claims of cultural appropriation. Being able to compare pointing out a feature of another culture that is legitimately offensive to uses of culture that constitute appropriation as we would see it lets them make it look like we are not only complaining about nothing, but that we are actively being harmful.
7)*Conclusion statement: these ways of seeing the world result from seeing things as “problematic” (“seeing things through problematic glasses”) (b).
-Why funny: Basically they make it look like a use of “problematic” is utterly illegitimate a person doing it is not to be trusted (interestingly enough I’ve seen some people on the right using it too).
*juxtapositions continue*
8) social justice/jihad (perception of rallying concept)
-Why funny: “Social Justice Warrior” anyone? In retrospect this comparison was bound to happen. They see any criticism of what they do on these issues as illegitimate oversensitivity at best. At threat to their own racism, sexism, misogyny, harassment and rape at worst.
9) slutwalk/whore (perception of social ritual to oppose rape culture/perception of faux Muslim views of slutwalk, this breaks the pattern because of how different they are and is a kind of conclusion)
-Why funny: The word slut is meant to control female sexuality, and they feel negatively about rape being taken seriously. Sargon can’t directly call feminists “whores” in the video so I suspect that he is using the faus Islamist to do it for them.
*statement by the characters that they have a lot in common*
10) Final conclusion where the feminist says that it’s not rape when a Muslim does it, and she is being raped by the Islamist.
-Why funny: Muddying up what rape is and is not is a standard tactic to prevent it from being taken seriously. This not only uses their rationalization that we are defending Islamists when we are defending all Muslims from being conflated with Islamists (standard bait and switch), it turns something that is clearly rape into something “not rape” when that is what they typically try to do to claims of rape. I’m still thinking about this one but I think that it’s funny because it basically takes all the tension from rape paranoia and puts it onto Muslims while letting them see a Feminist get raped.
I’m going to go finish that bottle of Thunderbird now.
Shit. I had a couple of notes in there that got left out.
(a) What’s being appropriated? Mentioning pedophilia? It doesn’t even make sense.
(b) Now that’s a fucking psychological trigger! Who knew “problematic” could have this effect on someone XD
Seems like Dawkins is re-tweeting every single supportive comment from his troglodyte supporters, it’s filling up my feed.
That, and Nugie and the Slymers’ verbal analingus.
Situation normal.
Brony, thank you.
I always have a hard time getting my head round the fact that people sincerely espouse religion or misogyny, that they’re not just talking the talk for the societal and material advantages it brings them but truly believe, and identify with their belief, in a god or in the inferiority of women. Once upon a time I used to think this shit had been debunked and would wither away, perhaps even in my lifetime. And of course for years I assumed that if someone was clear-sighted about one, it made them more likely to be clear-sighted about the other … needless to say, the last few years have been one hell of an eye-opener in that respect :-/
Dawkins went ahead and retweeted a tweet with the Feminists Love Islamists video link.
I thought Dawkins took down the video because he did not want to incite rape/death threats against a “vile,” “possibly mentally ill” woman who likely lied about those threats? Dawkins is totes a feminist, y’all!
lanir @ 70:
that’s good. keeper.
Dr. Steve Novella’s post on the issue is up.
Thanks, Brony. That was interesting, though I might have to read through it a few times. I feel like I owe you a response after asking for that but I’ve got nothing.
@127 kellym
That’s astonishingly immature. I bet he is congratulating himself for being so clever and findinf a way to still promote that disgusting shite. Pathetic…this is what a thought leader is? An irrational 10 year old wearing a suit?
Re: Dr Novella’s post… ok, so I’m being overly picky here, and he does address this in a later paragraph, but it bugs me that he’s characterised the relevant split* as being between free speech, social justice, or an attempt to find some middle road between the two. For one thing, the idea that there can be a middle road between social justice and free speech doesn’t make much sense, since free speech, and its close relative, free thought, are basic requirements for social justice – you cannot have justice if you are denied the ability to discuss or consider injustices. More importantly, those who’re “all for social justice, but…” are not championing the rights of free speech for all, but their own supposed right to be factually incorrect, ethically indefensible, or both without criticism or consequence.
They make cutting contact with people who have nothing of intellectual value to offer on facebook, or blocking abusive fools on twitter out to be a betrayal of the very concept of free speech. They replace the street corner preacher’s right to speak with a right to be heard, and deny the right of passersby to ignore yet another tedious brimstone diatribe – the right for the speaker to speak with the obligation for the audience to listen in silence. That is not free speech. For all their talk of SJ jargon being newspeak (even though it is an expansion of language to aid communication of ever more complex concepts and thoughts, rather than a reduction to simply concepts and limit thought) they never reference the constantly on, unsilenceable TV set from which only very brief respite is ever permitted… odd, that.
They deny the right of groups to get rid of spokespeople who, when speaking in their position as spokesperson, make comments which are opposed to what those groups wish to communicate. They deny the right of conferences who wish to promote skepticism to disinvite speakers who now serve to weaken it. Meanwhile, they engage in incoherent and dishonest harassment campaigns^ against people who criticise their idols with, in the least offensive cases, the intention and sometimes the result, or publicly silencing those critics. They’re not for freedom of speech. They’re for domination of speech.
*At this point – the point at which the word “split” has just been written – it’s already occurred to me that characterising it as a split between social justice and freedom from criticism/speech domination would be a source of controversy in itself, and it’s entirely possible, especially when you consider his later comments about how neither criticism nor even disinvitation from private events are violations of free speech, that he’s just being diplomatic there for the sake of trying to communicate instead of get into a shouting match. But, damnit, I have a rant in me. This is a flaw, I know… I’m working on it….
^ Admittedly, I can completely see why it would also be characterised as a harassment campaign when large numbers of people make legitimate but aggressive criticisms of things that people actually did say, and there needs to be some way to point out that someone is painfully, critically wrong without that being the case, but at least there is an actual criticism to be made there – it’s not simply shrieking about
politicalfactual correctness gone mad.Also, I don’t know if I should link the tweet or not – it was a response to a thing, not a public tweet – but apparently it is “unbelievably wrong and unjust, based on no evidence at all” to suggest that Dawkins doesn’t care what people other than white men think of him.
To be fair to him, he probably does care deeply. It’s just that he’s spent the past half decade telling them (in less direct terms) he doesn’t.
Brony @ 123:
That’s not quite it. When you don’t understand a word, its usage can seem mysterious and adhoc. “Quantum” is a good example; non-physicists can’t make heads or tails of it, so they’ll pop it into inappropriate places like it was a brand word.
Anti-feminists have the same problem with feminist terms of art. Their usage seems to make no sense, or contradict reality (“if patriarchy exists, where’s the group of men that built and maintains it!?”). Rather than conclude the term is complex and takes time to properly explain, they instead think it was invented whole-cloth in order to benefit feminists or harm others.
Much like “original sin” or “fatwa.”
To an anti-feminist, then, feminism looks like a religion. They both appear to have rituals, chants, and big reference texts full of garbage and contradictions. They both seem over-sensitive and easy to insult. And so both deserve as much mockery and scorn as possible, lest their dangerous ideas infect all our minds.
Hence why the video never bothered to explain terms. No explanation was possible, and that was the whole point.
And now we reach the part of the Dawkins where, after apologizing, he continues to double down on everything wrong with his original shitty behavior.
Beware: The stupid, it burns
Retweets:
Tweets:
You see why I needed to do that, right? It is an amazing, prolific amount of bullshit. The stuff Dawkins will say to justify himself, and the absolutely idiotic things that he will approvingly regurgitate for all to see, is just a sight to behold. It is an incredible display, and that is why I present to you the above, a monument commemorating a small sliver of the Dawkins’ dismaying stupidity. Is there any respect left for us to lose in this man?
Athywren:
SPECULATION ALERT
I argue the opposite. He does not care about what ANYONE thinks of him. He is just like any internet douchebro that way, be it gamergators, MRAs, alt-right racists, what have you. He certainly does seem to care when his reputation is at stake though. He cares what people think in that respect. I posit that we can explain that just by looking at a startlingly similar internet persona: Milo Yiannopoulos.
Milo recently lost his little blue checkmark on Twitter. He lost the minor privilege of being a verified account. And, despite ostensibly not caring about such an obviously trivial thing, he simultaneously pitched a fit about it, raised his rabble, and got them rabid and angry about this non-issue that Milo is totally too cool to actually care about, getting to them turn their accounts into Milo copies and to trend the phrase “Je Suis Milo”, because gamergate sense of humor is just as tasteful as Dawkins’. Somehow, despite Milo also playing it off as no big deal, it is also become something important enough for some of his fans to declare it the beginning of the end of twitter, a sign of oppression and horrible librul bias, a justification for an angry, frothing mob, and for Milo to find new ways to antagonize Twitter, in order to dare them to do something worse to his account.
So, what does any of that have to do with Dawkins? Well, his reactions are identical. He tries to simultaneously trivialize and magnify everything, so that he can manage to both seem like a quiet, reasonable old scholar who is too cool to care, while also turning a mountain into a molehill and stoking the flames of fury in his loyal subjects, who see the horrid injustice before them and hope to fight on their master’s behalf to make things right.
So Dawkins does pretend to not care while actually caring. But, he doesn’t actually care what people think, any more than Milo does. Dawkins cares about having followers, fans, an audience. Fame. Popularity. Power. It is all about power. Taking away Milo’s little checkmark was an affront that slightly reduces his power, returns a minor little barrier to having an audience. Taking away one speaking engagement of Dawkins is something that slightly reduces his ability to have an audience, slightly reduces his ability to recruit new fans, or rally the old ones. It slightly reduces his power. And THAT is what he cares about. He couldn’t give two shits if people are actually hurt, because empathy is ultimately no real concern to him. His empathy has been appealed to time and time again and it has not worked. The man revels in offending people. He is a professional troll. And all he cares about is that his profession continues to go along smoothly. Whether more and more people consider him to be a “polarizing” asshole with no fucking idea what he is talking about is irrelevant if it increases the devotion of those lining his pockets, and nets him a few extra fans who consider feminists a common enemy. He only cares about other people insofar as they are useful to him. Otherwise, he doesn’t give a shit.
This may not be as true of Dawkins as it is for other internet bigots, but from where I stand, it is a very compelling explanation.
Shit, last one I swear. Too good to not share. Too perfect.
Guess what Dawkins retweeted?
So he retweeted himself a Gamergator Dear Muslima. We are fast approaching Peak Dawkins.
anteprepro @135
Dawkins never apologized. He took down the retweet, refused to apologize, then this morning put up a different retweet of the same purportedly satirical video, duplicating his original shitty behavior. I agree with everything else you wrote.
anteprepro
Oh, a lot of retweets from people standing up for him are from GamerGaters, MRA’s, anti-feminists (and I mean this in the sense of opposed to ALL forms of feminism), islamophobic racists, ultra-libertarians, hysterical anti-immigrant racists, UKIPers and even a couple of Trump supporters.
If I ever got praise from such a group of people, I would start questioning myself, to be honest.
But, but, he said he wasn’t aware that it was about a particular person.
Also, no one is asking this movie to be ‘banned’.
Skepticism. What the fuck is it again?
kellym:
Good point. Come to think, that is the real Dawkins cycle. He rarely ever apologizes. Even when he seems to, it is usually a blatant not-pology (i.e. “I’m sorry you were offended, but I was right and can never be wrong, and [ramble ramble ramble] feminist lynch hunt police”).
zenlike:
That was, like, a day ago.
Before: Oh, it is perfectly fine to mock feminists as a class! It would only be bad if that character was actually based on a real woman who was being harassed. Wait…..
After: Oh, it is perfectly fine to mock one specific feminist! It is just one person, you aren’t mocking feminists in general!
As kellym and others have observed…..he sure didn’t care about Chanty Binx’s harassment for very long.
Truth.
Oh, and somehow, the retweets are getting worse.
https://twitter.com/NorBdelta/status/693573893190242304
Allen West is a former Republican politician (specifically involved with the Tea Party), Fox News contributor, and works out the London Center for Policy Research, a conservative think tank.
Some bits from wikipedia:
Dawkins really does associate with some great minds. I keep hearing the Dawkins being called “the Trump of atheism”. That comparison seems more accurate every day.
I find it weird that people are complaining (on twitter) that some of us are pointing out that his fandom has dropped off among the reasonable, and skyrocketed among the ultra-right. Apparently, a person can have no control over who follows them. I mean, I guess that’s true to an extent – there are a few people I follow on twitter whose views on some topics I disagree with almost entirely, and they probably wouldn’t pick me to follow them based on that – but still, it does say something when you’re losing the support of the majority of people from one side of an issue while gaining the support of the other side, and what it says tends to be that you’ve taken a side, de facto if not officially.
anteprepro @90
Thanks for the transcript – like carlie, I didn’t want to watch the video. It’s breathtaking that someone as supposedly rational as Dawkins could think there’s even a glimmer of intelligent commentary in that bigoted and childish dreck.
As for this retweet…
“If @RichardDawkins was a real feminist he wouldn’t waste time on FGM & child brides, he’d tackle real issues like butts in video games.”
To think he once said: “There should be no rivalry in victimhood, and I’m sorry I once said something similar to American women complaining of harassment, inviting them to contemplate the suffering of Muslim women by comparison.” Mind you, he destroyed that apology only a few months later by going on to say: “I concentrate my attention on [the menace of Islam] and I confess I occasionally get a little impatient with American women who complain of being inappropriately touched by the water cooler or invited for coffee or something which I think is, by comparison, relatively trivial.”
Athywren
“Some of us are pointing out that his fandom has dropped off among the reasonable, and skyrocketed among the ultra-right.”
Since petty authoritarian people like you and most of the others here are not reasonable, who are these “reasonable” people you allude too?
Falcon
“Thanks for the transcript – like carlie, I didn’t want to watch the video. It’s breathtaking that someone as supposedly rational as Dawkins could think there’s even a glimmer of intelligent commentary in that bigoted and childish dreck.”
( I didn’t want to watch the video.) Good be narrowmind and easily offended, that complements the rest of your personality
Not you obviously. We are reasonable. But we do think women are you equal and should have the same privileges as you do. What are you scared of?
Hey Nerdy Ginger
Since both Dawkins and I believe whole-heartedly in women’s rights & equality, you are being a tad disingenuous, to put it charitably
Nor was Big Red in any danger of being assaulted in any way over that video. Dawkins didn’t even realize she was anything more than a cartoon character as well, you fool.
What fascist authoritarian ninnies of your ilk are saying is that Big Red is some noble woman who must never be mocked because she is a leftist woman. This is not an equality issue and you know it
So it is okay to trash Dawkins or my type, but some rude out of control hag who pulls fire alarms to silence meetings she disapproves of is beyond reproach? Equality means that her fascist stupid behavior can, no MUST be criticized and mocked, the same as the cowardly behavior of the alleged free-thinkers who dis-invited Dawkins.
You and your pals are just weaklings who have to have everyone around you to agree with you!
Wah I want my safespace, Wah, i want my hugbox. That big bad cisgendered straight white male Dawkins, that devil, said something i don’t agree with. KILL HIM!
Ah, I love the smell of morons necroposting in the morning. It’s the smell of victory.
Ok, was gonna let it pass, but nope. Can’t.
I didn’t watch the video, either. Cause I’m deaf. So fuck you, you privileged ass.
Nope, neither of you wish to end the microagressions and petty harassments that keep women as second class citizens. And it will be the case until the end results are equal all around. Now there is the legal pretense of equality, but not in the results where it counts due to the institutionalized misogyny and bigotry, which you either support, or are actively trying to break down like we are. I suspect you are just another SQW (status quo warrior).
I don’t want to kill Dawkins; I would rather ignore the asshole.
Red Head Fool:
“:Nope, neither of you wish to end the microagressions and petty harassments that keep women as second class citizens. ”
Sorry but women aren’t 2nd class citizens, nor was Big Red harrased at all over Dawkin’s post,
That is garbage, not logic. You are basically saying that it is okay to trash men,but women, no just the women who think as poorly as you, must be protected. That is the exact opposite of equality. You are too self centered and self righteous to see your blatant hypocrisy
And when you run your collectivist gob about your unobtainable goal of equality of results. Does that mean you want just as many women murdered as men, as many female prisoners as male prisoners, as many homelesss women as homeless men, as many female suicides as male suicides?
“I don’t want to kill Dawkins; I would rather ignore the asshole.”
Is that you trying to be reasonable? Compared to Dawkins, you are Grade A moron.
And you YOB, you named yourself very well. You are a low class punk
Hey idiot, the video had captions And I wasn’t referring to you either in my previous post, you ugly little humanoid, So spare me your phony sense of offense about a post that had nothing to do with you. And yes, you are as narrowminded as well as excessively crude, ugly and stupid
But you do typify the kind of leftist trash, like these so-called feminists, I was referring to. You feign offense, in order to be as offensive and unreasonable as possible, You are just a childish bully.
I’ve figured it out, Dawkins is some kind of twisted fusion between Pat Condell and Thunderfoot that periodically fuses to make stupid tweets and court Right-wingers and MRAs.
Oh shit am I late to the MRA screed party?
Let me just fire up my MRA mad-lib sheet.
I really hate how (Woman’s name) did (noun) against men, but I’d be crucified if I did it to women. (Noun) is a cultural-marxist myth and only an (expletive) (gendered slur) would think it is real. I got mad when Sarkeesian complained about (body part, plural) in (video game title).
Sorry VIv, but I am not an MRA
You know what Dawkins & Thundef00t have that your type doesn’t?
Education, Intelligence and honesty, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, A SENSE OF HUMOR!
You are as humorless as you are pathetic & ignorant
Every one of you pathetic fascist weaklings who approves of Dawkin’s getting disinvited isn’t even fit to clean his laboratory or his bathroom either.
current troll
Oh. Okay, buh-bye.
Don’t worry bro, I’m totally a fellow MRA. No need to lie or get defensive.
I too really hate how Rachel Ray played Cards Against Humanity against men, but I’d be crucified if I did it to women. Mustard is a cultural-marxist myth and only a damn rake would think it is real. I got mad when Sarkeesian complained about earlobes in Halo 3.
Bwahahahahahahaha *wipes tear from his cheek*
Well, aren’t you a special little snowflake.
*snortles*
Vivec #157
I would like to subscribe to your Newsletter.
So Jake, why don’t you explain why it’s funny then? You can even use the transcript as an aid if us poor dense authoritarians can’t figure it out. I’m sure when you set us straight about the nature of the humor it will make you and Dawkins look loads better. Right?
What exactly hasDawkins done about FGM? I mean, when and where exactly does he support muslim women and muslim feminists? Last I heard of him on that subject was demanding how they dress to please his boner.*
Jake
I’m glad to hear. I actually have better things to do than to clean up men’s shit. That you think that somebody who isn’t Dawkins himself should do that job says a lot about you, not about me.
And your evidence for that is?
Gods, you’d fail at pouring water out of your boots if the instructions were printed on the heel.
It is completely irrelevant whether Dawkins knew that she’s actually a real person or not. He tweeted that shit to 1.3 million people where by now a large contingent overlaps with those who have made it their personal obsession to harass and threaten any woman who dares to have an opinion. Dawkins’ intent matters fuck shit when we talk about the results of his actions.
…it’s quite early in the morning, and I didn’t sleep very well, so it’s entirely possible I’m just not operating on full braininess, or that I’ve woken up in an alternate universe, but when did it become petty and authoritarian to notice and comment on things? Or fascistic to recognise that private groups have the right to decide who speaks at their private events?
Athywren
Harassing women, threatening them and hounding women into hiding to make them shut up is perfectly reasonable free speech. Saying “we’ve decided you have nothing of interest to say to us so we won’t pay you money to do so” on the other hand, that’s fascism.
judging by the fact that Dawkins has actually done any science for about 20 years, that might be a big cleaning job indeed.
lots of dust I’d bet.
why on earth do people still even call Dawk a scientist?
he really isn’t, and hasn’t been for a long, long time.
1st has ->hasn’t.
well, other than the fact that he should know better than NOT to have checked on the source before gleefully distributing it.
so it’s relevant to the fact that he has become (or always was) a failure at understanding people.
it’s not readily apparent that you have any of those things yourself, so it’s interesting to see you attempt to judge that content in others.
and by interesting.. I really mean laughable.
when numpties like you say things like this, what I see are people who only find the most base humor, like say, Benny Hill, to be funny, and actually fail to comprehend things like sarcasm and parody.
you know, like the post by Vivec right above yours.
people like Dawkins are the ones that appear to be regressing… as they find humorous the same kinds of things a pre-teen might.
hence, why I am absolutely convinced the whole “regressive left” thing is really nothing more than a projection.
you better ask Dawkins first… make sure it’s ok. send him some really nasty childish cartoon videos involving men, and see if he retweets them for you.
I’m sure that will resolve the issue.
Voice 1: Hmm. Let’s see how much money we have for speakers for our conference. Hmm. Hey! It’s enough to get a great speaker with a very public rep or 3 or 4 folks who are great speakers but aren’t super-high profile. We want this conference to be a place where everyone has lots of fun, right? We want people to be excited & think they got their money’s worth? Right? Well, what about spending that money on getting Dawkins to come?
Voice 2-7: Hey, good idea […x6]
[…a few weeks pass…]
Voice 1: Didn’t we say we wanted to get a great speaker?
Voice 2:Sure. Why?
Voice 1: Because I’m looking at Dawkins again, and I know we invited him and at the time I thought that was a good use for our money. But either he’s not really a good speaker, as he’s really rather careless about the meanings and importance of things he says and promotes publicly…and to be fair, that’s his version…or, he’s someone whose values are really different than mine – different enough that I really don’t want to give him my money?
And hell, his follow ups are backtracking towards his original position which was so cowardly: asserting as fact that some significant minority of feminists are enthusiastic supporters of repressive, totalitarian Islamism to the point of excusing and even inviting rape, so long as the crime is committed by a muslim man of theocratic bent… but not bothering to actually quote any examples of any feminists anywhere taking pro-theocratic, pro-Islamist positions even where they might fall short of endorsing the rape of disfavored groups by members of favored (Islamist) groups, and certainly not bothering to show that such quotes are representative of any important and/or numerous feminists or groups of feminists.
It’s so strange, you know? If he had an actual argument, he would make it don’tt you think? I mean, he asserts that feminists are actually supporting Islamist theocratic repression to the point where they either have endorsed rape or at least have endorsed repression, oppression, & violence so extreme that an endorsement of rape would be perfectly within the boundaries of the established character of those feminists. But does he provide any evidence at all? He doesn’t.
Since in other situations he’s made such a prominent, committed and principled stand on the theoretical, practical, and ethical importance of evidence in argument, his failure to introduce reasonable evidence here makes one seriously doubt if he is, in fact, someone who embraces the importance of evidence instead of merely someone who uses the cry, “No evidence!” thoughtlessly because it seems the thing to do, seems so persuasive, and happened to get some positive feedback when he happened to yell, “No evidence!” in the direction of organized religion.
Voice 3: Really, the whole thing makes me seriously question his effectiveness as a communicator. He’s all over the map with asserting the importance of the video’s content, asserting ignorance of the nature of the video’s content, deleting, approaching apology, backtracking, approaching apology for having approached others with apology, and more. He’s asking thousands of dollars to be paid on the basis of his communication skills, but his communication strategy is a mess.
Voice 4: And the other reason to invite someone of his stature to our conference is that for many people who would attend it has a good chance of feeling fun and exciting if they are presented opportunities to rub elbows with someone they’ve previously known only from popular media. But, y’know, so many people who are interested in our conference – including me! – were really turned off by that shit. I wouldn’t be excited to rub elbows with Dawkins. It wouldn’t enhance my fun.
Voice 5:Yeah, I think a lot of people are in that space. My impression is that the value of what our audience might get out of a Dawkins appearance just fell – by quite a lot – because of his tweet of that anti-feminist video.
Voice 6:I think the value fell enough that it’s actually less than we’re being asked to pay.
Voice 7:Well, it’s our money – I mean, collectively the conference money is ours to decide how to spend. If it’s not worth it because he’s cast doubt on the value of his communication skills and because our largely pro-feminist audience won’t be positively excited to see someone who just tweeted an anti-feminist video, well, we can choose not to spend our money on bringing him to speak.
Voice 1:Yeah. that seems fair. In fact, I don’t know how prominent I should make this argument, because I can’t speak for everyone coming to the conference, but I actually am wondering if his values are sufficiently different from mine that I don’t want to help fund his organizations.
Voice 7:That’s a reasonable point, too. But the main thing is this: it’s our money. We can decide how to spend it. Has this episode made us as the conference board feel like the price being asked is no longer worth the potential benefit Dawkins might provide?
[…a unanimous vote later…]
Voice 2:Okay then. We officially choose not to give Dawkins’ organization thousands of dollars, because in our assessment, our particular audience, at our particular conference, with its particular theme and flavor will not receive a benefit of comparable value. Let’s draft a statement explaining why we’re doing this so there’s no confusion. Hell, it’s also an opportunity to educate about stereotypes and sexism, which is part of our mission.
Voice 1:That’s a good point as well. If we have a public education mission, we should educate the public about why we’re taking this step.
Voice 3:Oh, and make sure we offer refunds to any who want to cancel their conference plans because we’re no longer bringing Dawkins to speak.
Voice 4:Yeah, that seems fair. We want to do this ethically.
Voice 1:Okay, done. It’s our money, we don’t want to give it to Dawkins, or at least not so much of it, considering what we’d get back. It’s our conference, and we have reasonable concerns that through incompetence or different values – either or both – that Dawkins won’t forward the mission of the conference in the way we previously thought that he would. Our organization is one for public education and against sexism and stereotyping, which that video and thus Dawkins’ tweet promoted, so we take the opportunity to to public education work on that as well. Finally, we make sure we protect any person who might lose out for having reserved a spot at our conference when Dawkins was going to be coming and now having a reserved spot at a conference where Dawkins will not speak. I think I’ve got it all. It all sounds reasonable. I’ll write it up.
[…days later…] Jake Freiburg says:
Good show, Jake Freiburg.
Board members of a conference made decisions about how best to spend the conference money to achieve the conference’s goals, concluding that requires no longer having a speaker who has cast doubt on his ability to contribute to those goals. And yet, it’s a fucking white man who happened to be the one disinvited. We certainly don’t want anyone to think it’s okay to disadvantage a white man in any way, even when it comes to matters like a group of people deciding together how best to spend their own pooled money.
We really, really needed something to shut these feminists up, so I love what you did. Let everyone know that it is completely hysterical to change your mind about paying thousands of dollars for someone’s communication skills and messages in light of new information that casts doubt on their skills, their message, or both.
I’m sure that the hysteria around disinviting Dawkins will be well and thoroughly revealed by your comment equating mindless killing with collective decision making that is willing to consider new evidence when it becomes available, even to the point of changing your mind about major planned expenditures that result in some white man’s vainly named organization losing out on a contract.
Yes. I’m quite sure the
hysteriatesteria that has been so omnipresent the last few days will be well and truly revealed by your comment.Good show.
@Ichthyic
you know, I used to have more confidence that I did, in fact, have a sense of humor.
However, as of late I have it on good authority from a pair of pre-teen sources that I do not, in fact, have any sense of humor at all. Deferring to their expertise, it makes me wonder if perhaps the reason I find myself disagreeing with Jake Freiburg is that Jake Freiburg actually has total powers of discernment that are fully equal in every respect to those of an eight or nine year old pissed off at mommy and, alas, my powers of discernment are not, in fact, equal to that same value.
#sadbuttrue
@Jake Freiburg:
Yeah, that was neither intelligent, nor novel, nor of any utility at all when Neil Peart wrote The Trees in 1978. Thirty-seven years later? still of no utility and obviously of even less intelligence. I won’t, however, even attempt to compare Peart’s intelligence to yours.
Oh look, a childish, brainless, big-chested twit. It doesn’t even have its full adult plumage yet, but look how it puffs trying to look big.
We are all very impressed, Jake, you’ve really shown us…with your wit, and mad logic skillz and word using thingy. Much rational, very intelligence, many humour. Wow. Now fuck off and go grow a brain.
———
I have to say, though, the bit about Dawkins having a sense of humour is just absolutely precious.
CD
I’ve come to the conclusion that I do, indeed, have a sense of humour. It is a fine cultivated thing like my taste for red wine and single malt whisk(e)y. Call me an elitist, but what I want from jokes is for them to be funny and not make me cringe, like I want wine not to cause me a headache after a single glass of Chateau Migraine and like I want whisky not to make me blind.
I know, I know, Chateau Migraine is a very popular wine, mainly because it’S cheap and I wouldn’t shame anybody because it’S the only one they can have, only that I’d rather not have any wine at all before I have a Chateau Migraine.
Same’s for humour: Some of it is cheap, and hurts people, and I understand that many people don’T have enough wit and empathy to afford any other humour, but I’d rather not offend my sensible tastes with that kind of humour.
In the past week, RD has approvingly retweeted a racist and misogynistic cartoon by a white supremacist, AND a parody of his book back cover’s done by a neo-nazi that ends with the final words “Eat shit and die!” in reference to anyone who doesn’t find his ideas amusing. He has deleted both tweets, but refuses to acknowledge that retweeting them in the first place is highly problematic, and exactly the type of behavior that has gotten him uninvited from speaking in the first place.
Apparently there is something funny in there, if you look at it just right and blame the feminists for ruining everything.
Dawkins has a sense of humor? Whaaaat? I mean, I am known for being poor at recognizing sarcasm, understanding some jokes and I know it about myself. But even so I do know how those things are supposed do work.
Dawkins and Tf00t (and the whole gamergate and MRA brigade) most definitvely do NOT have a sense of humor. They only use the pretense of humor as a fig leaf to cover their bigotry and stupidity and to feed their sense of superiority. Only this fig leaf is transparent, so we can see through it. To them the equation “offensive (to someone else than to me)=funny (universally)” is true, and that is just plain stupid.
A fun fact – the Dunning-Krueger effect was in the first study observed with regard to humor- in the sense, that people who do not have “a sense of humor” that could be recognized as such by professionals in the field (satirists and comedians) actually thought they do have plenty of it and think very highly of themselves in this regard.
________
Dear bangladeshi atheist
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know your colleagues have been hacked to death with machetes, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t sefe to express your opinions even in private spaces, and you can’t leave the house without fear of attack, and your police will not protect you, and you’ll be arrested if you try to complain. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor western academic brothers with millions worth written to their name have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, he calls himself ‘an atheist’, and do you know what happened to him? His speaking engagement was cancelled. I am not exaggerating. It really was. He got disinvited and he will not get paid for talking at a conference. Of course he can speak in numerous other public venues, and of course nobody even threatened to lay a finger on him, but even so . . .
And you, bangladeshi bloggers, think you have oppression to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
Charly @ 176:
Brilliant. *Clenched Tentacle Salute*
Thanks, Charly.
Dawkins needs to see that.
nope. would not help. He’s simply too far gone for that now.
this kind of thing helped a bit during the early days around the time of “Dear Muslima”, but he has clearly shut down his ability to listen completely since then.
don’t bother. if you see him on the street, just move quickly on to avoid embarrassment as he waves his cane at you and gibbers about you being on his lawn.
Hey Dawks, remember that South Park episode? Great satire, uh?
Ichthyic,
Oh yeah, I meant as ridicule, not as a way to show him the error of his ways.
I long gave up the view that he’s merely confused and is just being swayed by all the dudebros around him. It’s not just privilege at work; it’s malevolence.
Jake and falcon are now going to have practice their comedic skills with each other, rather than on this humorless bunch who have all heard their “jokes” before.
Am I missing something? Falcon hasn’t said anything ban-worthy afaict.
Um… Falcon made one comment @144 and it looks pretty on point to me. Unless they have made an ass of themselves elsewhere that I haven’t seen, I really don’t think the ban hammer is warranted in this case.
I’m loving what happened after I left, and I can’t believe that I missed what Vivec typed at 157. Spot on.
I wonder how many of them honestly don’t know that humor is not only relative, but that it’s offensive by design in a social context that involves conflict. People necessairly have different senses of humor because we fear different things.
Folks, I don’t think you’re allowed to do that. Telling the Poopyhead that he probably made a mistake. Didn’t you read the terms and conditions?
@Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-
They are like me probably new to this whole fascism thing. We all try our best. It is just very difficult not to slip back into trying not to be a dick.
Giliell @186
Oh, right. Hive mind. Echo chamber. Sorry, I forgot.
S th fscst fmnst pg PZ Myrs s bsy cnsrng ths thrd t kp hs rbd fmnst dschnds frm gng bnkrs, knw t s mcrggrssn cls t rp t hv thr chldsh myths vn qstnd. Bg Rd s yr dl bcs sh s f crtns blly jst lk YB ∓ th rst f th rsdnt dts hr
dn’t ndrstnd why ny f y typs r skptcs cnvntn, snc yr txc fmnsm s bt s rrtnl, dgmtc nd nt-ntllctl s t cms. rl skptc wld b skptcl f hs wn blfs, whl smpl mndd fntcs rn’t
Fc t, f th bbl(s) md Gd nd ll th ldrs wmn, mst f y mndlss fmm hypcrts wld b hgh prstsss. Dwkns hs brn nd ss t, whl y r ll brd brnd prrts r wrs.
There was questioning up there? I’m afraid that you will have to point it out amid the emotional impressions offered as assertions and the lack of substantive points that actually refer to something in the video.
Haha, yeah, I definitely agree, Jonas.
I really hate how Hillary Clinton sang “Can’t stop me now” against men, but I’d be crucified if I did it to women. Religion is a cultural-marxist myth and only a fucking crone would think it is real. I got really mad when Sarkeesian complained about feet in bayonetta.
Th dffrnc btwn Dwkns nd ll f y, ncldd, s tht ppl wll py nd g t f thr wy t lstn t hm thn lrn whl y nbds hv t clng tgthr n stpd blg, bng rd s hll thn bnnng nyn wh ffnds y
Thndrf00t’s Y Tb chnnl ln gts mr hts thn ll f “Fr” (h) Thght pt tgthr. Bt tht’s bcs y r s cttng dg nd ntllctl, ll
Is there a bot somewhere that creates those posts? They are rich in insults the poster thinks to be clever but empty in actual content…
Haha, I know, right? I’m definitely in agreement with you there, Jonas.
What really makes me mad is how being kicked in the balls hurts. Things like that are why we need meninism.
She is? Interesting, I’ll have to figure out how that works, because, y’see, I had never heard of her prior to Dawkins being a noisy asshole once again.
Hmmm… *considers @189*
Not bad. Not bad. I’ll give it a 6 out of 10. I can almost feel the spittle being flecked. It needs some random capitalization and an eleventy or two to really bring its Douchebro Internet Screed score up, though.
There are more of those emotional impressions offered as assertions again. And no wonder they don’t actually cite the video if they want to use rudeness as some sort of shield. This stuff really does just boil down to keeping a particular group in charge regardless of reference to reality.
Umm, Vivec? Could you please stop now? All the giggling is making people stare at me.
Brony @ 197:
Y’know, there are a fucktonne of valid arguments to be made, there is zero reason to pull the vulcan bullshit, that emotions in any way are bad. It’s a constant source of annoyance when assholes show up here and point to people being passionate or angry as a sign of us all being hysterical b!itchez, and so on. So don’t fucking do that.
Y ll d rlz tht nt nly ws Dwkns nwr tht th hghly ccrt crctr f th fmnst ws rl prsn. bt n whr n th vd ws sh rfrd t by hr rl r nck nm. N n wh wsn’t lrdy fmlr wth hr wld knw sh ws rl prsn.
Bt lt m pt my fmnst gggls n nd r-wtch t
Nw m gttng ll th sblmnl mssgs Sytnthst nsrtd:
h rght, t clrly gv t hr nm, rl nd scrn, hr ddrss, hr dly schdl. s wll s rcmmndd vrs
srts r wpns nd psn n cn s t d th pr ldy n
f nyn s glty f gnnng p ht gnst smn, whch tmtclly mks thm cnsprtr t cmmt mrdr. t s ll th fscst dts hr byng t Dwkns.
Jonas, if the person in the video wasn’t meant to obviously refer to that specific person, then why did the animated version have the same haircut, the same red hair, the same glasses, the same sartorial style? Was it just a coincidence? Why not have that person be a brunette… wait a minute, maybe the video was actually anti-ginger propaganda!
Yes, let’s do keep on spinning all sorts of explanations why an obvious caricature isn’t an obvious caricature. Let’s sidestep the fact that someone who has an international audience and has actually had a paid position as a communicator ought to be a little more careful to background check their sources before, you know, communicating things. Let’s do whatever it takes to avoid making people be responsible for the shit they do, ‘cuz that makes society ever so much better.
I totally feel you there, Jonas!
Feminists like to argue that men aren’t the disposable gender, when every attempt at sex leads to the death of thousands of male sexual cells! Its like they don’t even recognize their folly! Thats why we need brave meninists like you or I.
@Caine
I have no problem with emotions in general and I actually do respect them. I try to pay as much attention to them as I do content. It’s the fact that it’s only emotion and assertion in an aggressive context that is my problem.
Jonas, you did see the transcript up there right? Feel free to show us what you think is accurate since it’s your views of something that matters when making some kind of statement that can be responded to with more than our own emotional impressions. The thread is full of our perspective and your rhetorical pretend game is simply more mockery absent a debatable point.
Bro got mad.
Srry Brny, bt wht r y rntng bt? dn’t nd trnscrpt, wtchd th vd, nlk y nd mst f th nrrwmndd hmrlss fthds hr wh ddn’t wtch t.. ls, y nd yr cllss fns r th mtnl ns, crtng sm mrtl thrt t f thn r t jstfy yr nrrw mndd cnsrs bhvr. nd th dt, wh thnks h s clvr, bbblng bt mnnsm s t dns t rlz tht mnnsm s prdy f yr chrshd fmnsm!
Thr ws n thrt t Bg Rd n th vd, rl r mpld Sh sffrd n ttcks rl r mgnd bcs f th vd.
nlss y hv prf tht ths vd ld t sm vlnt ttck t hr, y r ll dng nthng bt crtng scr hx n rdr t slnc smn
Whthr y wnt t dmt t r, sh s lgtmt trgt f prdy jst lk nyn ls.S spr s yr prnd fntss nd ls bt hw sh ws NT thrtnd.
Snc nn f y “flks” hs shrd f prf sh ws hrmd n th lst bcs f th vd, y hv ll gt my cntmpt th hrd wy, y rnd t!
You wound me, Jonas. I’m merely making some rock-solid arguments for men’s rights, and you insult me?
Sounds like someone’s a deep cover feminist.
Who but a feminist could deny that sexy women giving us boners in public when we see them is anything but an act of sexual harassment?
Jonas, the transcript is there for convenience. I happen to have seen the garbage myself and the transcript covers a lot of the content of the video quite well. While I agree with the others that the use of that person in the video was disgusting, that was not my argument. If you are going to respond to me you may want to exercise more reading comprehension.
You don’t have to be defensive about your emotions here. I don’t have a problem with emotions in general and this community tends to respect them in a general sense which is why Caine checked me above. I should come up with some better wording given the usual social view of something that is always part of conscious thought. It’s when emotion + assertion is all there is from a person trying to be socially aggressive that there is a problem. All you have are qualitative statements that are mere opinion.
It’s all bluster.
hmmm. It’s a caricature, but it’s accurate?
So, he was aware that it was accurate – because he overtly said so, clearly articulating that he thought that aspects of the video referred to real qualities of real people – but he was entirely ignorant of the possibility that the creator of the video was referencing the real qualities of real people.
…and Dawkins wasn’t aware that there’s a distinction between doxxing and creating a caricature, and that the two different forms of communication use different real qualities of real people in the attempt to identify someone.
Wow, this Dawkins person whom you defend is entirely unaware that the strip Doonesbury has ever in its history visually represented a real person who occupies or has ever occupied the Presidency of the United States. Political cartoons are a complete mystery to this Dawkins. The Dawkins you describe thinks Triumph of the Will doesn’t have an opinion on the identity of the best leader for Germany in 1935 because, hey! it never actually states any specific comparison of Hitler’s leadership abilities to the leadership abilities of any other candidate for Germany’s leadership in that era.
Congratulations on creating such a revealing portrait of the true character of Dawkins.
I can’t believe Jonas is here braying about a microaggression like this drama when there’s real issues for men’s rights to address.
Like, one time I went out of my way to smile at a woman, and the frigid chick wouldn’t even sleep with me in exhange!
@209 Crip Dyke
Darn, you are lightning fast!
Vivec, here, please accept this offering of internets.
Police or GTFO
Frozen peaches
Othering
Projection
This guy is the gift that just keeps on giving.
I, too, would like to offer a shiny new internet to Vivec.
Although many men perceive Big Red as aggressive and strident, I don’t actually think she is actually strident and aggressive. What I think is that we have all become so accustomed to seeing everyday sexism ring-fenced by a wall of special protection that when someone delivers even a mild criticism of the misogyny, it’s heard as aggressive when it isn’t.
@Jonas Pell
Evolution is inextricably connected to new choices, nature imparts reality to self-righteous observations, and our consciousness undertakes precious sensations. Self power corresponds to incredible love, intuition is a reflection of unique life, and true identity alleviates species specific mysteries. Innocence embraces deep belonging, the secret of the universe projects onto innumerable truth, and the universe gives rise to a jumble of positivity. The unexplainable is rooted in reckless phenomena, the Higgs boson is the ground of objective photons, and these Chopraisms have more factual content in them than all of your comments (I’m grouping the comments under the Jake Freiburg name in amongst them – forgive me if you’re just twins, and not actually the exact same person.) and the video Dawkins retweeted combined.
@213 Tethys
She has dyed hair, that means she HAS to be a nagging she-devil.
Yeah, Dawkins trying to pathetically excuse his choice to promote that pile of festering anti-feminist, racist horseshit, by saying that she still deserves to be mocked is extremely telling in itself.
Not totally on topic but not completely off it either I just got the following traveller alert since I’m flying this weekend:
What exactly would an MRA protest rally look like? Also Vivec needs to work “neomasculinist” into their next comment.
Emotional assertion without evidence. Typical of MRA trolls. All ignorant bullying attitude, no substance. Which is a tell….
Nah, I can’t even pretend to align with return of kings. Literally wanting to legalize rape is a couple degrees worse than “ugh feminisms in muh atheism”
Obviously, Jonas Pell, Jake Freiberg, and Randellin (all the same fellow) are now banned, but you can trust that he’ll slither back!
@Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia:
Whether it’s fortunate or unfortunate for the sarcastic implications of your statement
…I have dyed hair.
Damn, I’m conflicted. The innate spell-like abilities are nice, sure, but with the Effective Level Modifier, I’m just not sure I would power-scale well as a SheDevil.
Just noticed some of Jonas’ posts were disemvoweled. Now I have to work to figure out what was said.
I love puzzles.
*no internet, just a nice fuming tankard of aged gr*g of Vivec for their hilarious comments*
My apologies, the falcon ban was a case of mistaken identity on my part. The ban has been removed.
PZ Myers. The bastion of…
Nothing. Get bent, Myers. Mr. Dawkins has more integrity in one of his tweets than one could sift out of the millions of garnage words this blog has ‘inspired’. Sucks when an Englishman is better at the trade than yourself? Must hurt; enjoy surrounding yourself with sycophants. they will always keep you feeling loved.
Gods…fuck this blog.
Ah yes, all that “integrity” required to using the oppression muslim women face as a rhetorical tool to bash feminism and actively co-sign white supremacists and misogynists.
I’ve got more integrity in the pimple on my shoulder than Dawkins ever will.
So very glad that Dawkins has definitely not surrounded himself with sycophants. Now there’s a man who would be roundly criticised by those around him if he were to uncritically repeat empty assertions or outright fascist propaganda, simply because it boosted his own ego! Meanwhile, Myers can get away with absolutely anything here, because there is not a critical mind among us. Not once have I seen him be called on a mistake. Not once has a disagreement been permitted. Nope.
You don’t get to just assert integrity. That’s how people end up with none.