It’s just the total Dawkins meltdown now


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.

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.


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

This is how you know I’m not actually a cephalopod: I’m pining for more limbs to adequately facepalm myself.

Comments

  1. Dunc says

    If all the palms in the world simultaneously palmed all of the faces in world, it still wouldn’t be enough facepalm.

  2. carlie says

    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.

  3. Vivec says

    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?

  4. Athywren - This Thing Is Just A Thing says

    you just like her because she’s as fat as you

    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!

  5. Athywren - This Thing Is Just A Thing says

    ^I’m sorry, but if I make a serious comment, I might break a tooth.

  6. Lady Mondegreen says

    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.

  7. Nentuaby says

    Well. He’s finally gone and done it. Except he skipped declaring himself Pope of Atheism and went straight to Atheist Jesus.

  8. Athywren - This Thing Is Just A Thing says

    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.

  9. says

    Jesus had not a single woman or minority among 12 Apostles

    :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…

  10. Athywren - This Thing Is Just A Thing says

    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.

  11. Vivec says

    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.

  12. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    Heaven Gazette reports that the Second Coming is disinvited. Jesus had not a single woman or minority among 12 Apostles

    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.

  13. says

    Giliell:

    In not completely unrelated news, Melody Hensley has been finally harassed off Twitter.

    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.

  14. says

    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.

  15. says

    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.

  16. Vivec says

    divisive arse…church of SJW…newspeak dictionary…yes men…echo chamber

    BINGO! I filled out my card.

  17. says

    adamcolley:

    PZ, Ugh

    You really are a divisive arse.

    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.

  18. Athywren - This Thing Is Just A Thing says

    “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).

  19. says

    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.

  20. Athywren - This Thing Is Just A Thing says

    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.

    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!

  21. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    And no, I’m not a slymepitter,

    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…

  22. says

    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?

  23. Vivec says

    @35
    While it’s just as mature, “You’re a meanie doo-doo head” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it, though.

  24. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    @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?

  25. Athywren - This Thing Is Just A Thing says

    @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.

  26. Vivec says

    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.

  27. karmacat says

    @25adamcolley
    “And no, I’m not a slymepitter,”
    It has meaning when someone brings up a topic just so he can negate it

  28. SenseOfTheAbsurd says

    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?

  29. Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen says

    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.

  30. anthrosciguy says

    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.

  31. Brother Ogvorbis, Fully Defenestrated Emperor of Steam, Fire and Absurdity says

    PZed @30:

    I tried to bully Abby out of a platform? When was this?

    I suspect that this is part of the Slymepit meme claiming you (PZed) got ERV and the Slymepit kicked off of NatGeo.

    Vivec@44:

    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”?

    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.

  32. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    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.

  33. Vivec says

    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.

  34. nelliebly says

    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.

  35. komarov says

    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.

  36. brideofeisenstein says

    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.

  37. LicoriceAllsort says

    brideofeisenstein @ 58:

    Maybe now that he’s losing speaking engagements he’ll take a long hard look at himself.

    Unfortunately, if past behavior is any indication, it will just make him double down on willful obtuseness.

  38. Raucous Indignation says

    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.”

  39. says

    I suspect that this is part of the Slymepit meme claiming you (PZed) got ERV and the Slymepit kicked off of NatGeo.

    Say what? I have zero clout with NatGeo, and erv is still on Scienceblogs, although she’s only posting sporadically.

  40. LicoriceAllsort says

    Dawkins released a formal statement via The Friendly Atheist:

    I woke up this morning to see a public announcement that my invitation to speak at NECSS 2016 had been withdrawn by the executive committee. I do not write this out of concern about my appearance or non-appearance at NECSS, but I wish there had been a friendly conversation before such unilateral action was taken. It is possible I could have allayed the committee members’ concerns, or, if not, at least we could have talked through their objections to my tweet. If our community is about anything it is that reasoned discussion is the best way to work through disagreements.

    I might mention that, before receiving any word from NECSS, I had already deleted the tweet to which they objected. I did it purely because I was told that the video referenced a real woman, who had been threatened on earlier occasions because of YouTube videos in which she appeared to her disadvantage. I have no knowledge of the authenticity of the alleged death and rape threats. But to delete my tweet seemed the safest and most humane course of action. I have always condemned violence and threats of violence, for example in this tweet, which I also posted the day before the NECSS decision.

    PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don’t EVER threaten anyone with violence. We should be free to use comedy/ridicule without fear it may inspire violence
    — Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) January 27, 2016

    I wish the NECSS every success at their conference. The science and scepticism community is too small and too important to let disagreements divide us and divert us from our mission of promoting a more critical and scientifically literate world.

    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…

  41. Vivec says

    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.

  42. bargearse says

    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.

  43. says

    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.

  44. shikko says

    @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.”

  45. LicoriceAllsort says

    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?

    It’s also a little strange to me that NECSS invited Dawkins in the first place if they were concerned about his tweets or his reputation among many in the secular community. Dawkins saying cringe-worthy things on Twitter isn’t new. He’s been doing it for years. I’m not exactly sure why this particular tweet crossed the line while the myriad controversial things he’s said in the past didn’t seem to matter to them.

    In an update, NECSS says they’ll post a reply on their blog tomorrow and in the next SGU podcast.

  46. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    re Dawkinspeak:

    It is possible I could have allayed the committee members’ concerns, or, if not, at least we could have talked through their objections to my tweet.

    Sheesh, he could have talked them out of dismissing him if they had warmed him about it.
    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.

  47. lanir says

    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.

  48. patrick2 says

    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?

  49. themadtapper says

    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.

  50. Raucous Indignation says

    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?”

  51. unclefrogy says

    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

  52. Al Dente says

    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.

  53. says

    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.

  54. brideofeisenstein says

    Patrick2@71

    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.

    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.

  55. says

    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.

  56. throwaway, butcher of tongues, mauler of metaphor says

    patrick2 @71

    It’s nice (I guess) that Dawkins concedes that doesn’t warrant violent threats, but why does he think it warrants relentless online mockery?

    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…

  57. says

    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)”.

  58. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    Patrick2, 71 and brideofeisenstein, 77

    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.

    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.

    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.

  59. Lady Mondegreen says

    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?

  60. rorschach says

    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.

  61. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    I wish there had been a friendly conversation before such unilateral action was taken. It is possible I could have allayed the committee members’ concerns, or, if not, at least we could have talked through their objections to my tweet.

    Maybe when something is so transparent, there’s really no need for an further discussion…

    If our community is about anything it is that reasoned discussion is the best way to work through disagreements.

    Is that what your tweet was Richard?

    I had already deleted the tweet to which they objected

    So, you know, that means it never happened. Science.

    I have no knowledge of the authenticity of the alleged death and rape threats.

    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.

    The science and scepticism community is too small and too important to let disagreements divide us and divert us from our mission of promoting a more critical and scientifically literate world.

    Fuck off…

  62. kellym says

    Dawkins, comparing feminists to Viking raiders:

    But we’ve proved it again and again,
    That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
    You never get rid of the Dane.

    @NECSS

    Given the valuable lesson that Dawkins has learned from this experience, I wonder what CFI’s stance regarding feminists will be, going forward?

  63. lanir says

    @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.

  64. Nick Gotts says

    lanir@88,

    He means the community is too small for other people to criticise or disagree with him.

  65. anteprepro says

    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.

  66. carlie says

    anteprepro, thank you for transcribing that, because I couldn’t bring myself to watch it.

    “whiny little pair of spastics” in there too. Nice.

  67. anteprepro says

    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:

    @RichardDawkins Why are feminists attacking you for attacking a religion that labels women sub human….I don’t get it??

    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:

    [Dawkins] tweeted:

    “Fuck me, I’m starving.”

    Stephanie Flotsam of skeptical website SkepTit immediately published a ten page blog responding to Dawkins’ appalling comments:

    “I find it astonishing that in this day and age we still allow old, rich white men to get away with their disgusting misogyny and lack of knowledge of their own privilege,” she wrote on a computer made with materials mined from land that used to belong to a tribe in a rainforest before they got moved or murdered. “Does he not realise that by saying the word ‘starving’ that he is demeaning the plight of the real starving people in the world? Do we care that he’s hungry? As a biologist, he should know better about looking after his body. Have a packet of crisps! And ‘fuck me’? Seriously, Dawkins, WTF?! As a person who has worked with rape victims, I find a man making fun of the idea of consent the most offensive thing I have read in a long time.”

    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.

  68. anteprepro says

    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.

  69. Tethys says

    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?

  70. bargearse says

    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.

  71. kellym says

    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.

  72. carlie says

    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”

  73. Tethys says

    Hee, I just noticed that the worlds largest cross is conveniently located in Effingham , Illinois. How very apropos!

    bargearse

    it’s just not satire.

    Exactly! I wonder if he is proud to have evolved into Rush Limbaugh?

  74. gmacs says

    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?

  75. Saad says

    Dawkins:

    The science and scepticism community is too small and too important to let disagreements divide us and divert us from our mission of promoting a more critical and scientifically literate world.

    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.

  76. says

    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.

  77. zenlike says

    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!

  78. says

    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.

  79. anteprepro says

    It uses stereotypes to convey extreme versions of ideas that in reality fall on a spectrum. Most reasonable people understand how satire works, and most atheists and skeptics are able to recognise the formula when they watch satirical video songs by Tom Lehrer, Randy Newman, Tim Robbins, Lily Allen, Sarah Silverman, Tim Minchin, Roy Zimmerman or Paul Woodfull.

    Some atheists and skeptics, however, are treating this song differently. It satirises the uncomfortable fact that some Islamists and some feminists sometimes use similar language methods to try to close down criticism of their ideologies.

    He later gives examples of satire lyrics from all the people he listed.

    But even if you believe he was wrong, the response by the conference organisers is disproportionate. Their stated reason is harmful: retweeting material that — in their subjective opinion — is “unnecessarily divisive, counterproductive, and even hateful speech” will result in a unilateral withdrawal of an already-publicised invitation to address a conference.

    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.

    One of the keys to enjoying good satire is to recognise that it is playing on stereotypes, and that it is not suggesting that everybody in the stereotyped group thinks that way. Instead, it is highlighting the harmful impact of certain ideas associated with the stereotype, and empowering people from within the group to distance themselves from those harmful ideas.

    Here are some examples of good satirical songs. They work if you recognise the formula, but not if you mistakenly think they are actually characterising everybody in the groups concerned. Indeed, some people have actually criticised some of these songs for that reason. These people either do not understand or do not respect the role of satire in positively reshaping culture.

    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”

    It compares the impact of ideas like ‘haram’ and ‘problematic’, ‘triggering’ and ‘unQuranic’, ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘misogyny’, and blaming the Jewish media and the patriarchy. This is a valid area to explore. These ideas mean a lot to some Islamists and some feminists respectively, but to other Muslims and feminists, never mind to people outside of those communities, the way that these words are used can seem not only silencing but literally ridiculous.

    It also addresses Muhammad’s sex with a nine-year-old girl, the idea of cultural appropriation as applied to sexual morality, and different attitudes to rape when the perpetrator is Muslim. This is a very controversial area to explore, particularly given the recent sexual assaults on women in Germany and other parts of Europe, but satire has its place in our response to these horrific developments.

    The video addresses these issues in a crude way. It is offensive to some people who have deeply held views on these issues. But that is part of the nature of satire. Ideas should always be open to robust debate, including ridicule. You have rights, your beliefs do not. That is why we can have campaigns against blasphemy laws, while also opposing incitement to hatred against people.

    Baffling. So much baffling. Can’t even begin.

    There are indeed some prominent atheists, such as the shock-blogger PZ Myers, who explicitly engage in hate speech, by naming specific people and groups of people who they hate, despise and hold in contempt. Ironically but predictably, PZ is among those praising the New York City Skeptics and the New England Skeptical Society for withdrawing Richard’s invitation.

    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….

    The feminist character seems to be a caricature of Chanty Binx or ‘Big Red’, who came to prominence in a YouTube video in which she was shouting at supporters of men’s rights. Some people made Richard aware of her existence as a real person.

    The ethics of caricaturing real people in satire is complex. How prominent are they? Are they actively promoting their own views, or have they been passively thrust into public glare? Are their views being accurately represented in the satire? What are the possible or likely real-life consequences for the people being caricatured?

    In this case, when Richard was told that some people had been harassing and threatening violence against this woman in real life, he deleted his retweet of the video, saying that it was wrong of anybody to threaten violence against anybody and asking them to stop.

    That is the opposite reaction to that of a person promoting hate speech.

    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.

  80. brideofeisenstein says

    Carlie@91

    “whiny little pair of spastics” in there too. Nice.

    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”.

  81. anteprepro says

    (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.

  82. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    There are indeed some prominent atheists, such as the shock-blogger PZ Myers, who explicitly engage in hate speech, by naming specific people and groups of people who they hate, despise and hold in contempt.

    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.

  83. says

    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.

  84. Saad says

    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.

  85. anteprepro says

    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…..

  86. Bernard Bumner says

    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.

  87. says

    @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.

  88. Dunc says

    What the hell is it with misogynist dudebros and their feminism-to-Islam comparisons?

    They hate Islam, they hate Feminism, therefore by the transitive property, Islam and Feminism are the same thing.

  89. zenlike says

    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.

  90. clevehicks says

    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.

  91. says

    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.

  92. bargearse says

    Brony @ 107

    They don’t take the time to say why the comparisons are “worth exploring”, they just say that it is.

    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.

  93. says

    @bargearse

    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.

    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.

  94. Athywren - This Thing Is Just A Thing says

    @Brony, 118

    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.

    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.

  95. says

    @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.

  96. says

    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

  97. rorschach says

    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.

  98. opposablethumbs says

    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 :-/

  99. kellym says

    Dawkins went ahead and retweeted a tweet with the Feminists Love Islamists video link.

    Feminists turn on @RichardDawkins because he tweeted this amusing video. Humourless harpies. https://t.co/CztEoIKi7fhttps://t.co/gq3I0JSkYg— Rita Panahi (@RitaPanahi) January 30, 2016

    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!

  100. Ichthyic says

    lanir @ 70:

    a fool who doesn’t own their own messes is implicitly promising to repeat them

    that’s good. keeper.

  101. Athywren - This Thing Is Just A Thing says

    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.

  102. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    @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?

  103. Athywren - This Thing Is Just A Thing says

    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 political factual correctness gone mad.

  104. Athywren - This Thing Is Just A Thing says

    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.

  105. Hj Hornbeck says

    Brony @ 123:

    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.

    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.

    As to the “patriarchal society” rhetoric. stuff it. If you can’t argue your point without relying on meaningless catchphrases (and patriarchy is meaningless, it’s definition is entirely subjective and nebulous. no two feminists mean the same thing when one bears down on the term, and most feminists don’t fully understand it themselves, and need to point people to some other article that doesn’t take responses in order to end the conversation, because they don’t understand the term well enough to defend it themselves.

    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.

  106. anteprepro says

    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:

    If satire doesn’t offend anyone it’s not good satire.
    ———————-

    * Islamists ≠ all Muslims
    * Chanty Binx ≠ all feminists
    * Satire is beneficial to society

    But it’s distasteful; ban it!!!

    ————————
    as a pastor, I don’t agree with @RichardDawkins scathing opinions on my faith, but I support his right to speak his mind freely and robustly
    ——————–
    don’t try to find logic in decision taken by @NECSS you would have more chance running into Jesus when strolling in the park
    ——————–
    Feminists turn on @RichardDawkins because he tweeted this amusing video. Humourless harpies.

    Don’t always agree with @RichardDawkins but he’s fair & consistent. Same can’t be said about his hysterical detractors.
    ——————–
    (Image saying “And one day for no particular reason we became offended by everything”
    ——————–

    Don’t be silly Richard! You know Christianity is okay to make fun of and ridicule publicly! Only Islam is above reproach!

    ———————————————-
    Dear @NECSS you’re being very silly. Grow up!
    (Adds an inexplicable link to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millie_Tant)
    ——————————————-

    what comes after no platforming. Book burning? Feels like fascism to me.

    ————————————

    (Image: “Oh look its the western feminist movement when it comes to Islam”. Picture of businesswoman with her head buried in the sand)
    ——————————-
    they don’t do irony
    ————————
    After that @NECSS – statement (disinvaiting @RichardDawkins ) : Who needs satire? – Or a laugh, for that matter?
    ————————–
    got disinvited to the @NECSS due to the reaction of a few who misunderstood satire, yet the @NECSS supports free speech?
    ——————————-
    what’s with everyone jumping on people for their Twitter followers? They can’t control who follows them
    ———————-
    As a feminist, what’s happening to @RichardDawkins right now is horrendous. He’s allowed to express humor without lynch-mob consequences. 😑
    ———————
    All lynch mobs are pathetic.
    ——————–
    did you contact @RichardDawkins for discussion on the matter before submitting him to this shameful kangaroo court?
    —————————-
    It’s because they get their Irony-meter removed surgically when they join the cult ;)
    ———————-
    Feminists mad at @RichardDawkins over a tweet of a parody video, proves the point of the video. Welcome to the 3rd wave.
    ——————
    The NECCS conference has just become a lot less scientific, a lot less skeptical and a whole lot more embarrassing.
    ————————
    NECSS North East Conference on Sanctimonious Sophistry – Apologize and re-invite

    Tweets:

    Here’s how 1 of those responsible for de-platforming me because I RTd a satirical cartoon justifies the action. Novella didn’t like the joke. I did. Find it funny & deadly accurate satire of those feminists who bend over backwards to appease Islamism.

    ————–
    Dear @NECSS, please listen to @StephenFry before you disinvite anyone else for “offending” the offence junkies,
    (Image of “I’m offended is not an argument” quote)
    ——————
    Dear @NECSS this is the kind of thing being satirised by the “Feminists Love Islamists” vid for which you banned me
    (Link to Jerry Coyne article about a talk by Maryam Namazie being opposed by both a campus Islamic society and a feminist group on campus as well)
    ————————-
    Now who will de-platform me for posting this? Come on, why not?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJUhlRoBL8M
    Or this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
    Both “offensive”
    (Links to “Every Sperm is Sacred” from Monty Python and the Meaning of Life and “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” from Monty Python’s Life of Brian.)
    ————————–
    Tom Lehrer, @TimMinchin, Monty Python, @Cruella1, Private Eye etc. Satire caricatures/exaggerates literal truth to reveal underlying truth.
    “Every Sperm is Sacred” isn’t a literally true portrayal of Catholic doctrine. It’s an exaggerated caricature to reveal underlying truth.
    The YouTube video “Feminists love Islamists” that led @NECSS to disinvite me also caricatures literal truth to reveal underlying truth
    That’s your opinion. I found it very funny and acute. Maybe not as good as Lehrer or Python but they set a v high standard
    ———————
    ‘It’s time feeble feminists started to condemn the misogyny in Islam’
    Yes, don’t tell me, I know there’s a paywall
    (Link to news article)

    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?

  107. anteprepro says

    Athywren:

    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.

    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.

  108. anteprepro says

    Shit, last one I swear. Too good to not share. Too perfect.

    Guess what Dawkins retweeted?

    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.

    So he retweeted himself a Gamergator Dear Muslima. We are fast approaching Peak Dawkins.

  109. kellym says

    anteprepro @135

    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.

    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.

  110. zenlike says

    anteprepro

    So he retweeted himself a Gamergator Dear Muslima. We are fast approaching Peak Dawkins.

    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.

  111. zenlike says

    * Islamists ≠ all Muslims
    * Chanty Binx ≠ all feminists
    * Satire is beneficial to society

    But it’s distasteful; ban it!!!

    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?

  112. anteprepro says

    kellym:

    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.

    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:

    But, but, he said he wasn’t aware that it was about a particular person.

    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.

    If I ever got praise from such a group of people, I would start questioning myself, to be honest.

    Truth.

    Oh, and somehow, the retweets are getting worse.
    https://twitter.com/NorBdelta/status/693573893190242304

    #feminists yelled more about @RichardDawkins tweeting a video then about the #cologne rape attacks. Pathetic

    Image: “I often wonder where are the feminist voices speaking up for the persecution of women in the Islamic World. Nah, I guess that would require courage” – Allen West

    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:

    West’s rhetoric won him both support and condemnation from differing groups along the American political spectrum. Members of the conservative movement viewed him as a “torch bearer” and “conservative icon,” with Sarah Palin and Ted Nugent both suggesting him for vice president, and Glenn Beck supporting him for president.[3] In January 2013, U.S. Representatives Paul Broun (R-Georgia) and Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) both voted for West as Speaker of the House, even though he was no longer a member of Congress.[43] Some of his statements include calling President Barack Obama “an abject failure”, ordering both pro-Palestinian demonstrators and the views of “chicken men” Democrats to “get the hell out” of the United States, opining that drivers with Obama bumper stickers are “a threat to the gene pool”, and pronouncing that African American Democrats are trying to keep African Americans “on the plantation”, while casting himself as the “modern-day Harriet Tubman” ferrying them to rescue. In a critical summation of West’s style, Mother Jones opined that “[for West] every sentence is a proxy war in the larger struggle between patriots and the ‘people in this world that just have to have their butts kicked.'”.[3]…….

    At a town hall meeting in Palm City, Florida on April 11, 2012, West was asked by a man in the audience, “What percentage of the American legislature do you think are card carrying Marxists or International Socialists?” West responded that “there’s about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party that are members of the Communist Party.” When asked to name them, he replied “It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.”[57]……

    Following the Charleston church shooting in 2015, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley called for the Confederate Battle flag to be removed from a memorial outside the state capital.[61] West referred to the debate over the flag as a “manufactured crisis” invented by liberals to distract from black-on-black violence.[62]…..

    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.

  113. Athywren - This Thing Is Just A Thing says

    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.

  114. falcon says

    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.”

  115. Jake Freiburg says

    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

  116. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Since petty authoritarian people like you and most of the others here are not reasonable, who are these “reasonable” people you allude too?

    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?

  117. Jake Freiburg says

    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!

  118. Jake Freiburg says

    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!

  119. says

    Ok, was gonna let it pass, but nope. Can’t.

    ( I didn’t want to watch the video.) Good be narrowmind and easily offended, that complements the rest of your personality

    I didn’t watch the video, either. Cause I’m deaf. So fuck you, you privileged ass.

  120. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Since both Dawkins and I believe whole-heartedly in women’s rights & equality, you are being a tad disingenuous, to put it charitably

    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.

  121. Jake Freiburg says

    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.

  122. Vivec says

    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.

  123. Vivec says

    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).

  124. Jake Freiburg says

    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.

  125. Tethys says

    current troll

    You feign offense, in order to be as offensive and unreasonable as possible, You are just a childish bully.

    Oh. Okay, buh-bye.

  126. Vivec says

    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.

  127. says

    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?

  128. says

    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.

    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

    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.

    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.

    Nor was Big Red in any danger of being assaulted in any way over that video.

    And your evidence for that is?

    Dawkins didn’t even realize she was anything more than a cartoon character as well, you fool.

    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.

  129. Athywren - This Thing Is Just A Thing says

    …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?

  130. says

    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.

  131. Ichthyic says

    isn’t even fit to clean his laboratory

    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.

  132. Ichthyic says

    It is completely irrelevant whether Dawkins knew that she’s actually a real person or not.

    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.

  133. Ichthyic says

    You know what Dawkins & Thundef00t have that your type doesn’t?
    Education, Intelligence and honesty

    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.

  134. Ichthyic says

    A SENSE OF HUMOR!

    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.

  135. Ichthyic says

    You are basically saying that it is okay to trash men

    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.

  136. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    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:

    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!

    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 hysteria testeria that has been so omnipresent the last few days will be well and truly revealed by your comment.

    Good show.

  137. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Ichthyic

    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, 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

  138. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Jake Freiburg:

    And when you run your collectivist gob about your unobtainable goal of equality of results.

    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.

  139. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    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.

  140. says

    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.

  141. Tethys says

    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.

  142. says

    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.

  143. says

    Charly @ 176:

    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.

    Brilliant. *Clenched Tentacle Salute*

  144. Ichthyic says

    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.

  145. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    Hey Dawks, remember that South Park episode? Great satire, uh?

  146. Saad says

    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.

  147. says

    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.

  148. says

    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.

  149. says

    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.

  150. says

    @Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-

    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?

    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.

  151. Jonas Pell says

    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.

  152. Vivec says

    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.

  153. Jonas Pell says

    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

  154. Vivec says

    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.

  155. says

    Big Red is your idol

    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.

  156. says

    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.

  157. says

    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.

  158. says

    Brony @ 197:

    There are more of those emotional impressions offered as assertions again.

    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.

  159. Jonas Pell says

    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.

  160. carlie says

    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.

  161. Vivec says

    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.

  162. says

    @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.

  163. says

    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.

  164. Jonas Pell says

    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!

  165. Vivec says

    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?

  166. says

    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.

  167. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    the highly accurate caricature of the feminist was a real person.

    hmmm. It’s a caricature, but it’s accurate?

    not only was Dawkins unaware that the highly accurate caricature of the feminist was a real person.

    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.

    no where in the video was she refereed to by her real or nick name. No one who wasn’t already familiar with her would know she was a real person.

    …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.

  168. Vivec says

    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!

  169. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    @209 Crip Dyke
    Darn, you are lightning fast!

    Vivec, here, please accept this offering of internets.

  170. says

    Police or GTFO
    Frozen peaches
    Othering
    Projection

    This guy is the gift that just keeps on giving.

     

    Vivec, here, please accept this offering of internets.

    I, too, would like to offer a shiny new internet to Vivec.

  171. Tethys says

    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.

  172. Athywren - This Thing Is Just A Thing says

    @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.

  173. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    @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.

  174. bargearse says

    Not totally on topic but not completely off it either I just got the following traveller alert since I’m flying this weekend:

    Activists are planning to stage counter-rallies in major cities across Australia starting 2000 Feb. 6. The Return of Kings group, which considers itself to be “neomasculinist,” originally announced gatherings as part of a global day of action.

    What exactly would an MRA protest rally look like? Also Vivec needs to work “neomasculinist” into their next comment.

  175. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    since your toxic feminism is about as irrational, dogmatic and anti-intellectual as it comes.

    Emotional assertion without evidence. Typical of MRA trolls. All ignorant bullying attitude, no substance. Which is a tell….

  176. Vivec says

    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”

  177. says

    Obviously, Jonas Pell, Jake Freiberg, and Randellin (all the same fellow) are now banned, but you can trust that he’ll slither back!

  178. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia:

    Whether it’s fortunate or unfortunate for the sarcastic implications of your statement

    @213 Tethys
    She has dyed hair, that means she HAS to be a nagging she-devil.

    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.

  179. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    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*

  180. ellisdee25 says

    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.

  181. Vivec says

    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.

  182. Athywren - Not the moon you're looking for. says

    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.