Richard Dawkins does it again. Citing a crude cartoon from Sargon of Akkad that claims feminists are in league with Islamists? Fuck me.
Obviously doesn’t apply to vast majority of feminists, among whom I count myself. But the minority are pernicious. https://t.co/l6LXchj2fG
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) January 26, 2016
Obviously doesn’t apply to vast majority of feminists, among whom I count myself. But the minority are pernicious.
The text on the video: Feminists and Islamists have basically the same ideology, demonstrated through the magic of song by SyeTenAtheist.
A pile of nonsense, favorably promoted by Richard Dawkins. Demonstrated
. Jebus. I’d at least expect him to understand the meaning of that sentence.
I’ll just be here, waiting for the inevitable back-and-forth where Dawkins spends an entire day on twitter declaring that he said that it didn’t apply to the vast majority of feminists, and that anyone who criticizes him for linking to it obviously didn’t understand that basic point and fail at logic.
I couldn’t quite make it all the way through, but I think far enough to get the gist, which is clearly that anyone who attacks the status quo is bad, and probably part of a big anti-establishment conspiracy. Unless (presumably) you’re an atheist. Atheists may attack the status quo if they wish. At least, white, male atheists can. All the rest of you rabble, get below decks!
Holy shit, promoting Sargon now? I genuinely did not think it could get that bad…My fault, for being naive…
But i guess since he identifies as a feminist i can’t accuse him of being sexist or prejudicial, since thatwould obviously make me a radical and precisely the kind of feminist he mocks, so i’ll just accuse him of being irrationally emotional, which is also true. Grow the fuck up, Richard…
Empathy is an underrated skill.
If you spend more time and effort mocking, insulting, attacking, misrepresenting and fighting against feminists than actually doing anything remotely positive for feminism….you really shouldn’t get to call yourself a feminist. Next Harris will start calling himself a pacifist…
“Speaking as an ardent feminist myself…”
Dawkins has really poor critical thinking skills. Weird.
It’s long past time for the Dawk to retire again–from Twitter.
“Obviously doesn’t apply to vast majority of feminists” So why endorse it by posting it in your twitter feed?
I didn’t think I could be more disappointed in Richard Dawkins. I was wrong.
“Obviously doesn’t apply to vast majority of feminists. Only to those who say I’m wrong about stuff.”
Wasn’t he a skeptic once? Or did I just assume that because I used to equate atheism and skepticism?
Does he think that it being a badly done cartoon with shit singing means you’re not allowed to check the assertions it makes against reality? Seems to me like he needs to go away and learn how to think.
The thing that pisses me off is that he somehow still has a reputation for being a rationalist, but he’s repeating this utter nonsense, as if it applies to anyone, anywhere, anywhen, without a shred of skeptical analysis. What the fuck, Dawkins? You have a reputation. Live the fuck up to it, or stop whining when it’s pointed out, yet again, that you’re unworthy of it.
Feminists have a lot to account for. After all, one criticized Dawkins. You can’t have that. Unacceptable!
I have to day, I really don’t understand all the hate towards feminists. If you dislike feminists what does that mean? you don’t believe in equality?
I have always said that whenever you make the statement all X are Y, you are always going to be wrong. No group is entirely homogeneous and any stereotype you can name can find support in a group if you look hard enough. It is wrong to make assumptions about people just based on certain aspects of them. Especially aspects of them that they can’t do much about like gender, race, ethnicity etc.
@10 Athywren – This Thing Is Just A Thing:
Seriously. What a goddamn embarrassment to rationality of any kind.
He’s basically also saying it’s false and generally unfounded IN the fucking tweet, then posting it anyway to get back at meanies.
He has to know all he’s doing is inciting hatred against all feminists with this bullshit promotion. What a vindictive ass.
@erichoug, 12
Oh no, they’re not opposed to equality. They’re opposed to the evils of third wave(!!) feminism! A perversion of True Feminism, which won the vote and then all was well.
Oh, yes, I know what you’re thinking. “But they’re not real!” “They’re just pictures!” They’re real alright! They’re there for all to see in black and white!! They’re real, I tell you! REEEAAAL!!!!! (Except for not being real.)
I’ll leave this one here again: “This is how a good muslim speaks. And dresses. And wears her beautiful hair.
Yes, he deleted that.
Apart from that he’s still claiming that feminists are silent about the Cologne attacks, which at this point you can only call a lie.
Hating “straw feminists” while claiming to be a True Feminist is one way people have found to still be sexist and whine about their precious status quo being taken away and how awful women are, but feel like they aren’t overtly mysoginistic like they imagine only people a hundred years ago were, which is obviously over now because bad taste.
The joy these people get from strawmanning feminism is so transparently rooted in prejudice that you wonder how they manage to convince themselves otherwise.
“I’m totally a feminist, but have you heard of these feminists that think cat-calling is something other than being nice and a perfectly normal, harmless, male courting behaviour? such crazy, radical c*ntz, lulz, they want us to die alone like they are.”
As several of us have done on Twitter – but obviously we are just third wave feminist SJWs who claim that attacking rapeculture is racist. Yes one of Dawkins’ fans tried to claim that feminists did that, but for some reason could not provide any evidence of anyone doing that (though he did make up a few quotes to that effect)
Marcus Rannum @11
You’re at least half jesting but I sometimes wonder how much of his anti-feminist bullshit of the last few years is motivated by some bizarre vendetta against Rebecca Watson.
@18 bargearse
I don’t know, how much, but certainly a number greater than zero. This is a petty, infantile, extended tantrum.
@8 Paul
And doesn’t that say it all, really? What could possibly be the motivation….hmmmmmm…..*thinking hard* hhhhmmmmm…
I pretty much think that is the case. Probably because Rebecca Watson spoke out against Paula Kirkby’s claim about there being no problem with sexism in atheism
My favorite are all the claims that feminism is outdated in the West, and Islamic countries need it.
It’s a great display of intersectionality on the other side of the issue: “We can intersect our dismissive attitude toward feminism (and even outright misogyny) with our cultural smugness and racism.”
I seriously want to slap the next person who tries to convince me that Western culture is utterly fucking perfect.
Also, why do I feel like the definition of “Islamist” is a shifting one? It just seems like a really vague term (purposefully perhaps?).
If an Islamist is someone who wants to impose their Islamic law on others or forcibly convert, then a better term for them is “theocrat”.
If an Islamist is a person who just wants to be allowed to openly practice their faith and traditions including *gasp* a hijab, then they’re just a person who wants the same rights as everyone the fuck else.
I never hear the terms “Christianist” or “Judaist”.
@22 It originally referred to a particular political movement in Islam. Not really a synonym of “islamic theocrat”, Iran is not traditionally considered “Islamist”. Now, it’s a snarl word nigh exclusively. (Which isn’t a bad argument to stop using it.)
Also the “I never hear the term Judaist or Christianist” is very similar to the fallacy used by antifeminists. (I’m sorry if that comes across as tone trolling.)
@23
Not tone trolling, it’s a good point.
While I can only speak about Turkey, I still fail to see the “We don’t need feminism but those weird brown people overseas do”.
Like, there’s a gender wage gap, purity culture, slut shaming, etc in both countries, and I don’t think there’s much going on in Turkey irt sexism that aren’t also present in the US.
Did… did Dawkins watch this? And endorses it? The singers refer to themselves “a whiny pair of little spastics”.
notheotherguy #26, but that is satire, or so Dawkins’ fans tell me. Also, you don’t expect a bit of non-pc language to stop the brave Dawkins from endorsing anything, do you?
Really, Richard? Are you sure? Wait a moment. Let me go ask my friend, who is black. I always go ask my friend’s advice on these matters, because he is black and he knows I count myself, being white, as non-racist.
Yes, yes, he agrees that only a small number of non-racists are racist, and therefore it’s OK to conflate my perception of racist attitudes amongst broad swathes of people I’ve decided to dislike this week with actual non-racist ones. No agenda is being served. No thinking is being avoided.
There, see, everything is OK. Now, shall I be Mother?
Bargearse@#18:
You’re at least half jesting but I sometimes wonder how much of his anti-feminist bullshit of the last few years is motivated by some bizarre vendetta against Rebecca Watson
I was more like 1/20 jesting. I think (based on no evidence, ‘cuz I r a rong skeptik!) that Dawkins’ attitude is largely revenge response for having someone having the gall to criticize his one true love. The enemy of his enemy is his friend, regardless of how repulsive they may be.
I’m not sure how one could test that hypothesis. Other than that this appears to be a new obssession of Dawkins’ since Rebecca Watson destroyed the skeptical community single-handed. It would be fun to ask him. But I think he’s moved past the point where anyone can expect intellectual honesty out of the guy.
She must have rent his soul asunder; he’s still bleeding about it. Or he’s that thin-skinned. Take your pick.
This is such a horrible thing to see. I lovedDawkins’ books so much. And now to see him morphing into a second-rate neocon … I REALLY wish he would smash his Twitter account and indulge in nice walks alongside country paths.
Marcus Ranum
Given that Dawkins is so wrong on so many issues, it can’t all be explained by Rebecca Watson, as much as I want her to have that superpower
Part of the problem is a lot of the racist anti-feminists can’t seem to understand nuanced, complicated thought. It’s like they can’t grasp, for example, how someone could be against the concept of the hijab while still standing up for someone’s right to wear it. It blows their minds that we can see Muslims as full human beings deserving of life, safety, and rights while still being critical of their religion.
@32 Tabby Lavalamp:
This is, in my experience, a common feature of a fear-addled fascist mind.
It isn’t a vague term.
Yes. An Islamist is an Islamic theocrat. There’s nothing wrong with having a precise word for it. The Muslims and ex-Muslims I know of who are fighting it seem to have no problem with the word.
That is not what “Islamist” means. The word for that is “Muslim.” (FTR many Muslims oppose hijab, and for good reason.)
Offhand I don’t recall having seen “Judaist,” but I have certainly seen “Christianist.”
@Marcus Ranum
Some years ago, I tried to tell him about the harassment Rebecca was receiving. He interrupted me and said, “Don’t speak to me of her. She has offended me grievously.”
Exact quote, pretentious syntax and everything.
I think the problem with Dawkins is that (1) success and attention have gone to his head; and (2) his transition to more immediate forms of communication has not played to his strengths.
Once upon a time, Dawkins was a science professor who wrote books, did the occasional TV special, and perhaps an op-ed piece from time to time. All of which required advance thought, some writing and re-writing and editing and polishing. And he was mostly dealing with matters that were within his personal areas of expertise.
I always thought that the criticism from philosophers that The God Delusion didn’t address the latest arguments being exchanged in philosophy journals was misplaced, because TGD was supposed to be a book for the masses, not an academic treatise. But I wonder if it didn’t embolden Dawkins to think that he could, though sheer intellectual power and common sense, spout off on whatever topic he chose.
And as he attracted more fans and fame post-TGD, suddenly every newspaper, magazine, and website are happy to publish whatever op-ed piece Dawkins feels like dashing off on any subject whatsoever. No need to do research or rewrites, and he need not tolerate much editing. Then comes Twitter, and suddenly Dawkins has a medium for sharing every passing thought that comes into his head on whatever subject is on his mind. He doesn’t bother to Tweet carefully or filter his thoughts, because his thoughts must be brilliant and sound, because he is brilliant and a good skeptic, because everyone tells him so. Except those irritating folks who contradict him, but they obviously are either stupid or engaged in bad faith misreading of his very clear words of wisdom.
As to his views on feminism, I think Dawkins is a feminist up to the point where it could affect him adversely. Abortion? Sure, let women have the right to choose. And of course women can be scientists or prime ministers or astronauts or whatever — it’s no skin off the Dawk’s nose. But when feminists start suggesting that maybe male scientists shouldn’t make “jokes” about female colleagues being distracting sex objects, or that men should in any way restrain themselves from treating women at conferences purely as potential sex partners, or that famous skeptics should be called out on bad behavior…. well, now, let’s hold on a minute! In a less direct way, any feminist argument that sounds like it might in some way contradict his anti-Muslim views (even if it doesn’t really, see Tabby Lavalamp @32).
Basically: nobody is smart 100% of the time on 100% of the subjects. It used to be that most of us would encounter Dawkins in the form of carefully-written works within his field of expertise. Now we see his every passing thought on whatever subject is irritating him. It’s like being Aristotle’s roommate: it’s hard to still regard him as a great thinker when you mostly hear him ranting about how you always hang the toilet paper roll the wrong way.
So, so unfortunate. I’m a Dawkins fan, but this is just hard to see.
The slender reed of truth in Sargon’s video is that a minority of feminists, like a minority of everybody, would like to shut down contrary opinions with laws, not just counter-speech. And that is wrong and bad. But Sargon puts it in such a crude, over-the-top and stupid way. And to endorse such oafishness. Ugh.
Ah well. Feet of clay.
Dunning-Krueger isn’t just for idiots. In fact, it becomes increasingly clear to me that the Dunning-Krueger effect is in fact MORE pronounced in smart people. You start with someone is smart in ONE area. People brag on that person for being smart IN GENERAL. That person begins to think of themselves as smart IN GENERAL. So now when Dunning-Krueger comes into play, it is amplified by the fact that the person not only doesn’t realize they’re stupid in the field they’re talking about, but in fact think they’re extremely smart in that field. Dawkins has had years of ego reinforcement, which has bolstered his confidence in his understanding of feminism, oblivious to the fact that he is utterly incompetent in the field.
Can’t say that my jaw dropped too much. At this point, I’d be a lot more surprised if Dawkins said something sensible when talking about social issues.
Well, there is the word “Dominionists” referring to those advocating Dominion Theology. Seems like a good parallel to Islamists.
I’ll just leave this here:
I’ve discovered that if you put @dril’s name on richard dawkins tweets they actually make more sense.
Obviously this video caricaturing all feminists doesn’t apply to all feminists because of logics and science you stoopid feminsts which you’d understand if you scienced, okay?
Just think, the same individual who tweeted this noxious item will soon be sitting on the board of CFI.
What an immature and socially regressive voice for a humanist organization.
And thus, the second entry in as many days at What Did Richard Dawkins Say This Time dot tumblr dot com.
That one true love being Dawkins.
k5083
[CITATION NEEDED]
Seriously, dude, no feminist wants to pass a law making it a crime to have a contrary opinion.
I’ve seen the phrase Christianist now and then, but generally as a reaction to someone else who has just complained about Islamists. I’ve never seen Judaist, but Zionist turns up rather a lot. A quick googling reveals that there are perfectly innocent uses of the term, but at least in my experience it’s almost always used by antisemitic conspiracy theorists.
@screechymonkey #36:
Not just more immediate, but more short-form. I remember when Dawkins drew criticism for his tweets on child sexual abuse, and some people pointed out that he made the same argument in The God Delusion. I didn’t remember that, or at least didn’t remember it being so callous, so I went back and read the relevant portion. What I noticed was that in The God Delusion, he loaded up the argument with all manner of caveats that made the same basic point less obviously horrible. The same thing happens every time Dawkins runs to the Guardian or some other outlet to whine about how he’s been misinterpreted by SJWs; he says the exact same thing that he claims people misunderstood, but says it in more words, with more superficial nuance, so it doesn’t look quite as awful (or so his fanbros can puff out their chests and proudly proclaim that the criticism all came from people who didn’t understand his brilliance, even though he basically just repeated himself).
When Dawkins is allowed to write without wrapping his ideas in layers of obfuscation, the odiousness of his ideas becomes clear.
But the context!…
Oh, wait, that’s Sam Harris.
Sorry, got the two confused for a sec there.
Did you guys see any other videos of the author’s? He’s getting hundreds of thousands of views and has a ~90% approval. He’s awful, he thinks he’s witty and smart but he’s awful. And people love it!
Kristjan Wager @20:
I think it runs deeper than that. Raise your hand if you knew Dawkins was an enthusiastic supporter of Evolutionary Psychology? The branch of psychology which paints itself as an opponent of feminism, due to the latter’s heavy emphasis on social factors and behavioral plasticity?
@40
I wrote a parody of “What did the Fox say?” called “What did the Dawks say?” last year and have been just adding lyrics each time he says something fucked.
I can’t even remember how long the song is now.
Fucking hell, I mean @44 Blake Stacey.
Editing is your friend, Feminace
So here’s my question. There’s probably at least one real self-identified atheist who is all ‘let’s ban religion!’*. So would Dawkins tweet: “Obviously doesn’t apply to vast majority of atheists, among whom I count myself. But the minority are pernicious. ”
(Probably not. Because atheists criticizing religion doesn’t hurt Dawkins. But feminism criticizing the patriarchy might force Dawkins to confront the fact he lives in a world that is more comfortable than the one women live in.)
* Even if most other atheists think of them as ‘That Asshole’. Or ‘No One Believes That Account is Not a Fundie Christian Trying to Get Us to Agree’.
@47
Yeah, Zionism isn’t exactly equivalent to dominionism or Islamism, since there are people who identify as Zionists but also campaign for the rights of Palestinian Arabs and for policies more in line with non-religious ethics. The really fucked up thing is that I know Christians who manage both to be sympathetic to right-wing Zionism and casually antisemitic.
@34
It’s hard when so many people use “Islamist” to describe people who are simply Muslim and don’t hide it.
@35
SPOING!!!
Athywren @14
They believe so strongly in equality that they believe equality has been achieved* and therefore feminists must now be demanding privilege.
*this belief is the effect of oxygen starvation from having one’s head up one’s ass.
Since Dawkins is a brit, I would assume he operates under British Employment law, which in turn probably is an EU directive if that matters. In that context your policies are not that which you say they are nor what you have written down in your policy but what you actually do.
So in this case: If Dawkins says “I am a feminist” and then says the sort of things he says and acts the way he does he is simply not a feminist by definition under British Employment law. His implied policy under British employment law would probably be more something along the lines of a pompous pontificating arse.
So there..settled it for you ;)
I woke up today and my first thought was: ah fuck, Dawkins is promoting Sargon of fucking Akkad…fuck, fuck fuck, fuck…
I thought last night that Dawkins’ tweet would somehow tarnish his reputation. This morning I feel more clear-headed and realize that I was being stupidly wildly optimistic. Dawkins is the Atheist Trump, who can call Mexicans rapists and shoot people in Times Square, and only increase his popularity among his supporters, who share his hatred of
brown peoplefeminists.CFI didn’t make an error didn’t make an error when merging with Dawkins. They made a calculated decision to become an openly anti-feminist pro-harassment organization. With the additional parallel that they will publicly deny that they are
racistanti-feminist. Apparently that’s the direction they see the atheist/skeptical movement going, and there’s plenty of evidence that they’re right.Becca, #54
Well, that would be punching down because atheists are the most mistrusted group or something.
The Great Oppressors of Men, on the other hand, are fair game for Dawkins.
Islamist is a perfectly good term that refers to a specific strain of political-theological thinking in the Muslim world. Its only problem is that it is too similar to the word Islamic, the broad adjective covering anything at all related to Islam. This makes it easy to misuse.
I think we can add some basic stuff about evolution to the list of things Dawkins knows shit about…
@35 Lady Mondegreen:
That suggests this similarly pretentious answer:
As for Islamists, I get the impression a reasonable shorthand is “Muslim Creationist”, spanning the whole spectrum from mostly-harmless believer to radical dominionist, just like the Christian version.
If you want to get more precise, you pick terms like Salafist.
For the longest time YouTube keep putting Carl Benjamin (Sargon) and Phil Mason (Thunderfoot) at the top of it’s recommended list for me. I’m like, “I’m subscribed to stuff like Crash Course and Sixty Symbols. How are you getting the idea I want to watch these scuzzbags rage about Anita Sarkeesian, YouTube Algorithm? Is it because I watched The Completionist a few times?” and dismissing the recommendation.
This went on for a bout three months before Mason’s sweaty smirk stopped greeting me. Stupid algorithms.
tl;dr- Blergh!
Turkey is much worse than the US: unlike Ted Cruz, Erdogan wears a mustache.
***
Nah, they’re the same guy actually: the Hipster Atheist Assholes are like Catholics: they, too, worship a trinity: the Father (Richard), the Son (Sam) and the Holy Bro.
***
Or, to be more blunt: Christian fundies and far-rightists loves Jews… but only when they live far away and kill lots of Arabs
***
It’s even harder when “Islamist” becomes a codeword for “Those damn uppity brown-skinned migrants who don’t content themselves with being the White Man’s servants like their grandparents were“
@59: Is it really advantageous for CFI to try to hitch itself (no pun intended) to the right wing?
Two and a half years ago, Skepticon and individual activists like Greta withdrew their support of the organization because of the patronizing and insulting statements Ron Lindsay and the board made about Women in Secularism 2.
CFI’s honchos were then left gasping for air and begging for forgiveness, since their base of support had been pulled away and the legions of antifeminist reactionaries they had calculated on replacing it with were too feeble to do so.
Will something similar happen now? Or does Richard Dawkins carry so much residual clout with so many people that nothing the rest of us makes a lick of difference?
Uggh. I can’t help but have a feeling that crap like this comes out of smart folks like Dawkins because of ego — some folks get it in their heads that they must be so damn smart that any notion, no matter the subject, that comes into their head must be wisdom. Somehow they lose (or throw away) the ability to step back and analyze their own ideas, especially when outside their areas of expertise, assuming that they must be so damn smart that they couldn’t possibly have had a notion that is deserving of all this crazy wild-eyed criticism.
Dawkins saying something appalling, stupid, and wrong. No surprise there at all.
Not just clout, Dawkins also has enough money that organizations are more than willing to throw their rank & file under the bus to get on his donation list.
williamgeorge @64
It’s because they’ve recommended thunderf00t to me that I try to avoid watching videos on YouTube that are of anything other than something I’d like.
Not having enough spare brain cells to sacrifice by watching that video, I need to ask:
What does it signify that the cartoon “feminist” wears a lab coat?
@Pierce R. Butler, 71
It signifies the manosphere’s disturbing tendency of singling out pretty much unknown people and obsessing over them for years on end. It’s not a cartoon lab coat – it’s the cartoon representation of a normal coat that a real woman (who once pulled a face like the one the cartoon never stops pulling) wore on camera while shouting at a street preacher who was doing their street preacher shtick to a gay pride rally.
He’s deleted the tweet, he claims because he was informed that the feminist in the video is a real person who has been harassed and threatened with violence. I don’t believe his claim for a second, and wonder what his real motivation is. But then I don’t really care why that asshole does anything.
kellym
Surprisingly that’s actually true. The amazing Lindy West set him straight. Of course no apology from him. And he called the woman about whom he video is “mentally ill”
Ha, he just tweeted that she may have lied about the threats of violence. It’s like he’s incapable of decency.
@kellym, 73
For what it’s worth, regardless of whether that really is his motivation, it’s certainly true. I could believe that’s the real reason he deleted it – it’s not like he’s a monster, just
a bit ofan arsehole.I wonder if that’ll make him start treating his anti-feminist sources with a shred of skepticism? Probably not worth hoping.
¬_¬
For fuck’s sake, Dawkins.
Thanks Giliell and Athywren. Lindy West *is* amazing.
…and now she’s dealing with DJ Grothe complaining about gendered insults from her followers.
Because we just had to be reminded that he existed.
https://twitter.com/thelindywest/status/692477208242298880
It’s like he has totally forgotten the classic “r vs K” selection arguments we all learned as undergrads.
yes, you can in fact be selected for dying young, if you leave more offspring… just that fucking simple.
of course, while even wrong at THAT level, clearly the man is also leaving out the many other obvious factors in age length that are not accounted for by a purely selectionist argument.
It’s not that he doesn’t “know shit” about these things… It’s just that he has selectively (pun intended) forgotten about them.
Here is Dawkins showing off his world class skepticism and brilliant logical thought.
This is the bio of the account he deemed fit to retweet.
As long as you reflect glory back at the brilliant Dawkins, he will take you at your word.
@Janine, 81
Heh, one of their tweets does that cute thing where they show an image of text with a section highlighted to show how craaaaaaazy the SJWs are, with the part immediately following the highlighted section demonstrating why the highlighted part is actually pretty reasonable. I mean, hey… quotemining – you’re doing it so wrong!
Mind you, given the tendency of these guys to reference articles that do not say what they say they say, I suspect TL;DR is always in full effect.
(Also; damnit, Dawkins! I know you’re very busy, probably, but the benefits of skeptical interludes are too important to skip over them! Especially when you [should] know [by now] that there are deeply untrustworthy data sources in your feed.)
The NECSS conference has disinvited Dawkins because of the tweet. Holy shit. This sort of thing NEVER happens. EVER! What a new sensation being stunned by a skeptic org doing the right thing. My grasp of the universal constants of physical reality has been changed forever.
I’m going to start saving to go to NECSS next year. (Have other plans already this year.)
As MA Melby put it; So – this happen.
The Northeast Conference On Science And Skepticism has withdrawn the invitation to Richard Dawkins.
Let the fall out and wailing and gnashing of teeth begin.
I should have refreshed first. I do not want to repeat information.
Dawkins cannot retire from public life fast enough at this point.
doing far more harm than good, for at least 5 years now.
Ichthyc
It’s the simple fact that most people are done reproducing and even raising the offspring past a critical age while they’re still quite young. At age 60 you’re already likely to be a grandparent or even a great grandparent…
+++
Dawkins obviously believes everything those people tell him.
If you want to see more of his level of delusion see the replies to his “I deleted the Tweet” Tweet
Dawkins: Having learned that the woman in the joke song is a real person who has been disgracefully threatened with violence, I’m deleting my tweets.
Other user: But not apologizing?
Dawkins: No, as far as I can see she hasn’t apologised. But I deleted my tweets anyway. Nobody, however awful, deserves violent threats.
He thinks that the person who was harassed and threatened owes people an apology. Him, having contributed to her continued harassment, probably being among them.
+++
Kudos to the NECSS
He has now decided that violent threats don’t exist. She’s making it all up because she is nasty.
My impression was that Dawkins was trying to make a joke, an unfunny joke, but your interpretation may be correct. His latest: “I deleted it because I was momentarily persuaded, probably wrongly, that a human life (however vile) might be threatened.”
He continues to express his hatred and contempt for the woman he mistreated. And to insist, contrary to evidence, that the woman must be lying. The man is a sexist, abusive, emotional toddler. And the new de facto head of CFI!
Here’s his latest, after being ballasted for giving in to the forces of evil as represented by the “regressive left” who want to “stifle intellectual debate” by deleting the tweet:
“@AtheistStoned I deleted it because I was momentarily persuaded, probably wrongly, that a human life (however vile) might be threatened.”
Damn, ninja’d
The thing I don’t get is how anyone comes to the conclusion that she’s vile from that video? I sometimes wonder if some people have just lived their entire lives without ever witnessing someone lose their temper. Because, you know, even the sweetest of people are generally not operating at the height of etiquette when they’re seriously angry.
I have a long series of “you what?!” moments in my history of engaging with anti-feminists in 1-on-1 discussions, and being shown that video is pretty prominent among them. Some random dude randomly added me randomly on steam and spent about a fortnight trying to convince me that all of liberal thought is cancer (and that identifying as progressive necessarily leads to supporting paedophilia & bestiality because “you can just assume consent” – he had a flow chart!) before I got sick of his shit and blocked all communication – that video was one of the first things he showed me as “evidence” that feminism is literally Hitler (on a side note, later that night, honest to no gods, he promoted eugenics to me). Ok, yeah, angry woman is angry. How does anything else follow from that? And, honestly, ignoring the fact for the moment that individuals are individuals, how does it reflect on feminism when the topic in question, unless my memory is massively failing me, was gay rights?
#ramblegrumpramble
Relatively new from Dawkins:
Because one of the most memorable things about Life of Brian was how it was specifically intended that Brian was totally unsympathetic, and definitely a direct representation of Jesus. Of course.
Splitter.