Nothing really matters,
Anyone can see,
Nothing really matters,
Nothing really matters to meeeeeee!
For some reason, those lyrics came to mind as I listened to this video, only, unfortunately, it’s not Freddy Mercury reaching for those notes — it’s Brian Dalton, and no, I’m sorry, you don’t have anywhere near the range.
Let us all consider what is wrong with this rather patronizing monologue.
First, I went looking for the post that bothered him, which he pretends is some superficial tantrum, comparing it to a romantic breakup. It’s by Chris Sosa, and it isn’t some petty lovers’ quarrel as it is presented here. It’s a recognition of deep differences that require clarity.
As an atheist, I’m embarrassed that there are so few of us in public. Richard Dawkins is leader-by-default in a group that would reject such hierarchy but can’t due to lack of visibility. He’s holding atheists hostage. But angry, misogynistic white men who try to silence opposition through racial fearmongering already have a home base: the GOP. They don’t belong in movements that reject superstition in the interest of making a kinder, more rational world with fewer boundaries separating us from each other.
Richard Dawkins does not represent me. He doesn’t represent atheists. He doesn’t represent scientists. He’s a single person with too much power who’s clearly become enamored with himself and needs to be gracefully demoted by the movement he helped build, not followed off the cliff he’s marching it toward.
Let’s face reality here, Brian. To most of the world, Richard Dawkins is the most prominent atheist on the planet; he’s the guy the media goes running to for a juicy quote, and in particular, they go running to him because he has a predilection for not just saying something interesting, but sticking his foot in his mouth while he does it. This is something Jim Al-Khalili or Shappi Khorsandi or Andrew Copson don’t do; they also don’t hold positions that are often revealed to be shockingly regressive. There are good reasons many of us have to distance ourselves from Dawkins.
Richard never agreed to be your personal spokesman, let alone your boyfriend.
So it’s an interesting way to frame the article, to belittle people who strongly disagree with Dawkins as people frustrated by romance. Clever touch, too, to frame everyone who wants nothing to do with the man’s opinions as “the girl”, because that’s exactly what will appeal to the Dawkbros. For the rest of us, though, it just tells us that you haven’t been listening.
And you, pay more attention: Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris and Dennett appointed themselves the personal spokesmen for atheism with the “Four Horsemen” gambit. We all know it was just a clever PR move, but you would not believe the number of atheists who believe that that is some kind of official leadership position. I see all these atheists wondering, after Hitchens died, who was going to fill the position; I get people telling me all the time that I was somehow hoping to one day be appointed to the exalted tetrarchy; all I can say is that the “Four Horsemen” is what four friends who met for a recorded conversation one day called themselves, nothing more, but the hero-worshipping fan boys of atheism don’t seem to realize that.
But sheep gotta have a shepherd, I guess, and the sheep who defy the shepherd are gonna get called mutton.
And here’s something I find deeply objectionable, the trivializing of differences.
This is even more true when you’re “breaking up with” someone you agree with 97% of the time.
Here’s the thing: you can say that about everything. Put me next to an orangutan, take off your glasses, maybe take a few shots, and blur out all the differences, and we’re both just hairy bipeds. We both like a banana, we must be just the same.
Or better yet, put me next to Donald Trump. We’re even more similar! My god, the differences simply don’t matter at all, apparently! This simplifies the next presidential election greatly: just elect anyone. Heck, elect the orangutan. We all respire, eat bananas, poop, sleep, make funny noises, on a properly cosmic scale, our differences become sufficiently insignificant that they don’t matter any more. Why, if we looked at Kim Jong-un and Barack Obama from a telescope on the moon, they are completely indistinguishable.
Strangely, some of us care about the direction we take. We have ideas that we think are worth fighting for, and they’re different from the ideas that other people want to support. When someone comes along and tries to tell me that my opinions are irrelevant, that what I think is important is actually insignificant, that hey, invading Iraq or not invading Iraq are all the same on the geological time scale, I’m not stupid and can tell when someone is being dismissive and arguing dishonestly. This is the strategem used by people who want to sweep all differences under the rug, resist change, and go with the status quo.
So when someone tells me that the status of women and minorities is an unimportant matter, unworthy of strongly expressing dissent with the self-appointed saints of the atheist movement, it tells me a great deal about the person trying to silence me. It tells me that they regard what I consider a central issue of great importance is nothing to them, that they want it to mean nothing to me, and that perhaps we really aren’t the allies I thought we were.
And then to follow it up with this excuse:
We’re provocateurs, we’re contrarians.
The issues of feminism and how we’re going to address the Muslim world are minor diffences that we shouldn’t fight over, but we’re provocateurs and contrarians, so just accept that we are going to bicker over these no-account, trivial little things! Atheists are people who proudly fight over matters of no consequence, at least in Brian Dalton’s world.
In PZ Myers’ world, on the other hand, I fight over stuff I care about. I think it matters if we, as atheists, perpetuate the patriarchal hierarchy and regard the Western white man as the measure of all things.
I also think Dalton is being fundamentally dishonest with himself. He cares, too. He cares enough to be moved to post a belittling monologue in which he tells the people who find Richard Dawkins to be unrepresentative of their interests to sit down and be quiet and accept him as their lord and master, their better, more worthy king of atheism. It’s also telling that he is only so moved when the target of dissent is Richard Dawkins; absent are the similar videos where he tells all the smug dudes of atheism that their hatred of Rebecca Watson is unwarranted, or that the position of Freethoughtblogs or Atheism+ is a valid side of the atheist experience and all the abuse should stop, or that perhaps criticizing Sam Harris for his position on racial profiling is a good idea, and certainly not so divisive that we should be sending this Myers guy hate mail every day.
But no, I’ve noticed that the people who say differences don’t matter all seem to have differences so great that they think we all ought to accept their side without question.
This is the viewpoint of a teenage boy. Grow up.
Just quoting for emphasis. That says it all.
@1 williamgeorge
The undercurrent of immaturity is very strong in these people. Unfortunately that also comes with a sizable amount of narcissism that prevents them from contemplating the possibility that they might not be perfect and always correct, as demonstrated by the Superrational Uberskeptics of Scientific Reason.
Yesterday was a Monday Monday, a seriously shit day, and today is second Monday, and am I ever having a shit morning with a side heap of stress. All I can summon for Brian hey, Shermer is a good guy Dalton is a snarl.
Oh, also, Brian? Shut the fuck up.
That’s the part that made me stand and applaud. That, right there.
This line frustrates me. First, anyone who thinks that the difference amounts to only 3% hasn’t been paying attention. Second, assuming that it only was 3%, nobody (of those who use this line, anyway) ever complains that Dawkins should stick to the 97% we apparently all agree on. Somehow, when Dawkins makes divisive statements, we’re to blame, not him.
Of course, that’s all just bullshit. We all know what the line really means: Shut up and take it.
To most of the english speaking world, you mean. In France, this dubious honor probably goes to the equally dubious Onfrey and Houellebecq. They… tend to spew a lot of self-satisfied bullshit as well.
I asked in the comments on YT if Dalton’s position applied to Rebecca, PZ, etc., and he said absolutely. Which is good, though I notice that he didn’t bother to put out a video defending them.
The YT commentariat disagreed, of course, citing all the reasons that the message of inclusion didn’t apply to the people with whom they disagreed.
So much special pleading in those comments. So much dishonesty, too.
The part explaining the “breakup” analogy should not have needed to be written. I mean, shouldn’t a fucking satirist be expected to get satire?
So if the Dawk never wanted to be our “spokesman,” why does he continually put himself in leadership positions/give high priced talks? If he doesn’t want to be a spokesman, he sure has a half-assed way of avoiding that responsibility.
Earth to Dalton: Now, you listen here: ‘e’s not the Messiah, ‘e’s a very naughty boy! Now, go away!
“This is even more true when you’re “breaking up with” someone you agree with 97% of the time.”
What a fantastic argument; I wonder how it would work in one of my closing arguments: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury; sure my client committed this heinous crime, but that’s only 3% of who he is. The other 97% of the time he’s really swell and he is like totes not committing any crimes–for reals. So, are you really going to let this paltry 3% convince you to convict him of this crime?”
Did he really not think that statement over? “Sure, my partner is physically or verbally abusive, but it’s only 3% of the time, the other 97% of the time we get along really well; why would I break up with my partner over a 3% ‘disagreement’?”
His atheist videos appeared to be so cogent, but, after his string of shitty apologitics, I’m beginning to think that I should reevaluate those arguments too.
I haven’t followed Dalton’s opinions on anything in awhile. Glad to see I haven’t missed anything.
@6 laurentweppe — yes! Dilma Roussef leads over 200 million people, and Liu Yandong may well lead 1.3 billion next year (she’s vice premier of the PRC now). Irina Bokova is the odds-on favorite to become the next UN Secretary General. So there are three incredibly powerful women atheists who don’t give a rat’s ass about the latest insulting blowhardery from some Oxbridge has-been. They aren’t spokespeople for GamerGate fanboys, they run the actual planet. Dawkins is the dudebro-crush of some keyboard jockeys who don’t go on dates very often. He’s no leader.
“This is even more true when you’re “breaking up with” someone you agree with 97% of the time.”
I am pretty sure most (non-rightwing) atheists agree 97% of the time with liberal theists. So why bother with the atheist movement at all? Why the hundreds of books, blogposts, youtube videos? Why doesn’t Dawkins and Brian Dalton hang up their hats and retire form public life? Why does mr. Dalton not stop with his endless video series whining and wailing against theism?
He might believe the 97% thing just as Dawkins might have a similar idea. It’s one of those garden variety failures of Theory of Mind that we all fall prey to occasionally (some more than others). We’re aware that others are thinking beings with capacities similar to our own, know they are capable of coming to conclusions and beliefs different from our own.
We know that, but the easiest way to model the world around us is to assume that unless explicitly contradicted by them, everyone is thinking / feeling the same things we are. So this guy can see an area of disagreement – treatment of traditionally oppressed groups (above the bare minimum legal protections the US grudgingly embraced) – and assume that we agree about everything else.
And since that subject is so minimal in his day to day thoughts – 3% – he can assume we prioritize it the same way. Hence his use of that number, when for people like me it’s more like 30% of my day to day thoughts. So I can see where he’s coming from and know I could make a similar mistake, but it’s still pretty disgusting. And the framing is mind-boggling in its sexism, feels like it’s straight out of the Playboy Mansion circa 1965.
He really needs to take this up with Blumner who just stated that his superstar status is absolutely necessary.
Can’t those people make up their minds?
I mean, Richard Dawkins isn’t only rich enough to create his very own organisation, her is so rich he recently bought himself a second one. There is very little I have in common with corporate atheism. It’s probably the fact that we agree on the rather small question whether there is a god or not and not of the 97% of everything else.
Dalton, the Dawk doesn’t know you exist so you can stop kissing his ass anytime.
I have to question the assertion that we can engage with each other over these things. People have tried engaging with Dawkins over this issue, on multiple occasions over the past few years, attempting to correct his errors and alert him to blind spots, and it has had zero apparent effect.
If it was possible to engage with him and work through the confusion, that would be one thing. Humans gonna hume, and that means screwing up from time to time – but skeptics gotta skept, and that definitely means, with no exceptions, LEARNING from your screwups. If you are incapable of or unwilling to learn, then you no longer qualify for the title of skeptic as far as I’m concerned. So, while this might sound like some childish strop, I don’t want Dawkins representing me as an atheist or a skeptic to the media – and whether he asked to do so or not, he does, because we live in a world where the most famous members of a group tend to be taken as representatives of that group. Now maybe this is just highlighting the fact that conflating atheism and skepticism is a big mistake, but then I’m wondering why I want to identify as an atheist at all. Because I don’t really care about being smug about how much smarter I supposedly am than theists anymore, and if the atheist movement is so dictionary-atheisty that they’ve even rejected the idea that we should aspire toward skepticism, then why should I want to be involved? I’ll admit that I wasn’t very skeptical when I first grew into atheism – that came later, with experience, and it ebbs at times – but surely it’s supposed to be a pro-skepticism movement? If we’re now saying that our leaders shouldn’t be criticised for failures of rationality – and however much people might want to talk about frozen peaches and fee-fees instead of addressing the criticisms, Dawkins’ failures have very much been failures of rationality and skepticism – and that rejecting irrationality in those leaders is immature, then what value does it have?
Ugh… if the above seems disjointed, it’s because I took a break in the middle of ranting to make and eat delicious pancakes. (Yum! Also d’aww – I ran out of batter for the last one, and it was more of a pan bunny. Adorbs. :3)
Does anyone have the % difference in DNA between humans and chimpanzees close to the top of their mind? Well it’s single figures, isn’t it? I’m pretty sure. Something like 7%? I dunno… I am not a biologists! Anyway with so little difference why don’t we simply call them humans?
Wait, what’s that? Because a ~3% difference can actually be quite significant? Oh… well, I do feel rather foolish now.
I’m suddenly very curious what percentage of the world’s circumference the Grand Canyon measures up to… or, hell, since I’m desperately trying to think of a huge-type large landmark close to home, and drawing a stunning array of blanks, the entirety of the UK? I doubt it’s a huge number.
maybe by word count, I only disagree with 3% of Dawk, yet, lets be clear, not everything is a linear, single variable, relationship. Those 3% of his words are exponentially worse than the other 97%. Pretty silly to try to reduce emotional responses to pure (simplistic) mathematics.
“We’re provocateurs, we’re contrarians.”
Indeed, I am. As a contrary provocateur the moment I heard the expression The Four Horsemen I decided I didn’t want have to do anything with them. They are not and never have been my spokesmen. They do not represent me and never have. The idea that they are my leaders one way or another only induces a rebellious mood. So I never called myself a New Atheist; only some Christians do. And as I like to provoke this standpoint as well I finally will admit that I like quite some stuff Dennett wrote.
@tsig #17 Dawkins certainly knows Dalton exists and they are on first name terms (or at least were one time, when Dalton was speaking and adressed Dawkins in the audience as (paraphrasing) “..Richard – do you mind? – Richard says..”
_______________
I stopped watching Dalton after his idiotic defense of Shermer and never came back to his youtube channel since.
The “Four Horsemen” reference made me suddenly wonder: I’ve seen reactionary bits by Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens on gender issues, but I racked my brains and couldn’t remember anything from Dennett on the subject. So I took a quick trip down Google lane, and turned up … virtually nothing. Dan seems to be steering clear of this kerfuffle.
But I did run across a vastly amusing paragraph in this article by Jim Newman at Skeptic Money:
That’ll teach you to go by your initials, Paula. Paulina? Paulette? Penelope? Eh, whatever your name is.
well I watched and listened to that and have read the comments.
OK could someone please explain to me just what it is he is saying we should do who disagree with what the famous oxford biologist has to say on subjects out side of his carrier field or his atheist writings? like the middle east or feminist politics or human rights?
Because if I understand it correctly what those who are outspoken in their opposition to Dr. Richard Dawkins is that he is not their spokesman which if I heard it right is just what was implied by that video.
uncle frogy
Hrm. Phil Ferguson knows me well, funny that he didn’t catch that. I guess I’m more feminine than I thought. Or maybe it’s that all those other women are more manly?
that 97% thing is really bothering me a lot. Even issuing that proclamation is dubious. I don’t believe in gods and think religion as a whole is damaging. Science is, in general, a good thing. That’s literally 3 things.
How does the Dawk feel about Dungeons and Dragons? or the Arrow/Flash TV universe? How does he feel about Shakespeare and which is his favorite play? He’ll probably say Hamlet. Self absorbed boys with pretentions of genius always say Hamlet. Does he like spicy food? How does he feel about vegetarianism? I imagine he and I have very, very different opinions about hip hop as a whole, since he’s got that Rhodes-inspired British Supremacism thing and is also super old. But would we even agree about “Which is the Beatles’ best album?” as I’m sure he just fucking loves them.
97% of “things” is an awful lot. Hell, I doubt we’d even agree on the answer to the question “What thinker contributed the most to the development of meme theory?” Where he would no doubt answer himself, but the correct answer is Hideo Kojima, who actually constructed an elaborate lab test for it in the form of a series of weird as fuck video games rather than simply coining a term.
And that’s before we get into political and philosophical differences within movement atheism, which is ostensibly the thing we’d be most likely to agree about.
If you handed me a questionaire with a bunch of questions, and him one, I wouldn’t be too astonished if it lined up somewhere between the 97% and the 3%. But I would be surprised if it landed closer to the 97 than the 3.
“I’m a rebel, Dottie. a loner.” – Peewee Herman
Scott @ 22:
this article by Jim Newman at Skeptic Money:
Dear Jim, this is what happens when men attempt to write about sexism under the assumption that it only really bothers those women persons.
Well, he’s previously mentioned a love of Schubert, which, like… pffft. Schubert’s okay, but gimme Mozart or Bruckner over him any day. ;)
Yep. I find them very thought provoking. They provoke me to think that they’re assholes and that I want nothing to do with them.
zenlike @14, good point. I don’t know whether Dalton has taken the “dictionary atheist” position, but anyone who has should be taking issue with his remarks, too.
Note that, when he sued Josh Timmonen, Dawkins’ complaint described himself as “the world’s best known and most respected atheist.”
There also seems to be a bit of a double standard going on. If you’re a Muslim, you’re expected to vigorously denounce every terrorist attack or offensive pronouncement made by a so-called “Muslim leader,” or else you’re deemed to be part of the problem (if not outright complicit). If you’re an atheist, you’re expected to shut up and not criticize the self-proclaimed atheist leaders because hey, nobody said that they were speaking for you to begin with.
Also, we need to practise “diversity” and “tolerance” towards the most overrepresented demography and opinion ever? Fuck that shit.
The whole “Provacateur/contrarian” thing is what I like to call “edgy facebook atheism”, and it seems to mostly accumulate in the younger and older members of the community.
You know, the sort that post edgy “I don’t follow a religion because I’m not -ableist slur-. You mad?” graphics and whatnot.
@karpad,
Well I don’t know about Dawkins, but me? Twelfth Night… really tempted to go watch the film version now….
The fifth horseman jibe is particularly eggregious.
It appears to come from your humanist of the year award speech in 2009. True you said:
“So I’m going to very prematurely declare myself a fifth horseman. I picture myself, though, as a little guy on a very small pony trotting after the other four. However, I’m waving a great big banner that has the words, “The Internet”
And:
And what about me? You know, I’m as atheist as those others and I’m probably “atheier” than some of them. (Although I do have to admit I haven’t written a book yet. I’m on sabbatical this year to finish my book, so maybe I’ll get a horse after all.
But this was placed firmly in the context that there needed to be MANY horsemen and 4 was a silly arbitrary number. The way these words get spun into new meanings is maybe the best criticism of the forces of reaction that there can be.
But the article is there for anyone to read.
Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris and Dennett appointed themselves the personal spokesmen for atheism with the “Four Horsemen” gambit.
Wasn’t that one of the (few) things the RDF spent marketing money on? If I recall correctly, there was considerable $$ pushing that particular bit of click-bait. It sold a lot of books for the “horsemen” too. I forget whether the brains behind that was Dawkins’ mistress, or the cash-wrapping lobbyist.
Larry Moran isn’t breaking up with Dawkins on account of he’s so polite and respectful.
UnknownEric
Seriously? Seriously? Pffft. Rachmaninoff is where it’s at. Or if you really must, Saint-Saens. Also this woman composer very few have heard about. But Mozart? I’ll give you Bruckner, sure. But I think we already disagree too much to be in the same movement.
^ May contain traces of snark.
Athywren:
The Scottish Play for me.
Ooh, thank you, I hadn’t heard her music before!
I should have mentioned Shostakovich also, but mostly the string quartets. :)
Aah, Mr. Dalton.
Well, no, dear. You’re actually right down the middle of mainstream authority-worshipping Americans. In that, you have about 97% in common with Joe Sixpak in south Indiana. Perfectly understandable, really, considering how you were brought up. Now you’ve figured out there’s no god, and that’s very nice, good work! Next, I want you to take a very hard look at heroes, and why having a hero might be so attractive to you. No rush, now, take your time, but you might find it wise to tone down your defense of certain people until you achieve a little more perspective about the responsibilities of existence without gods. We’ll have milk and cookies later.
He does have that video with sleazy, pervert, guy who has non-consensual sex with a drunk person called rape by most but not-rape by others and is referred to as “He Who Must Not Be Named(TM)” because he will sue even though he hasn’t, but is accused by many as being a serial harasser, saying that if you do not want to be raped then you should just not keep on drinking even though sleazy, pervert guy will continue filling your glass while he himself will drink water or not drink at all….
But yes, Brian Dalton, keep on supporting the assholes of atheism.
O-fucking-thello , in this adaptation.
It’s unbefuckinglievable how everything gets framed as an “attack on Dawkins”. Dawkins can be as horrible and wrong as possible, trashing and badmouthing feminists left right and centre but whenever somebody says “not cool” it’s suddenly “an attack on Dawkins”.
UnknownEric
You torture me. I hate string quartets. :D Though Sibelius has a nice one.
… And with that, I think we should repair to the Music thread if we want to continue this conversation. :)
karpad @ 25:
LOL. So true. “Tempest” for me, but I’m kind of a provacateur.
Giliell
Also note that he mentions that he has disagreed with the Dawk on a few scientific issues. Nary a mention of, you know, the social justice issues under discussion – I mean, sorry, attack. Or, no, wait, Dawkins is the one being attacked.
I get so confused.
So is Charles Manson.
Just saying.
At least two of the women cited are problematic:
Roussef policies have gone under heavy fire, and for good reason: between the billions spent to gain the fleeting prestige of hosting the FIFA World Cup and the Olympics (two event helmed by mob-like parasitic organizations), the Petrobras bribes scandals, the economy’s contraction coupled with her administration’s sudden conversion to austerity fetichism… None of this look good on a resume.
As for Liu, well, she’s ranking high in the hierarchy of a notoriously corrupt dictatorship.
Still, neither are known for basically making “I am an Atheist: bask in and bow down to my Supremely Glorious Intellect you peons“, which is a plus, I guess.
***
Does it still qualifies as a lab test when the equipment turns against you, forces you to flee the lab alongside the rats who by the way by and large decided to side with you against the lab?
***
Nothing beats the Slaves’ Chorus, Nothing
***
Speaking of woman composers, the Franco-Russian Anna Marly composed the Chant des Partisans: she’s barely remembered: the self-centered, monarchist, fundamentalistic, misogynistic Maurice Druon who merely translated the lyrics from Russian to French is still credited as the Resistance‘s anthem’s author.
karpad @ 25
Conflicted.
Dawkins, literally:
Context: He admits to eating meat.
Basically, he praises vegetarianism and veganism as morally incomparably superior in theory, but generously leaves the inconvenient practical bits to others. Even though (intersectionality alert) adopting a vegetarian or even vegan diet would be vastly easier for him, a rich privileged white guy, than for a poor person; he could have his very personal chef to prepare him the fanciest veg meals for crying out loud! If he at least tried it and it didn’t work out for him for some reason (he hated it, he missed meat/cheese, his health failed, whatever), at least he’d appear slightly more serious. His enthusiastic endorsion of the Right Thing while still admitting to regularly follow the Wrong Thing isn’t only ridiculously hypocritical; he comes across like an “abortion is murder” preacher who openly admits to pressuring women in his life he impregnated to abortions …
Note that I personally do not accept the “meat is murder” premise; but he does, publicly, and if he wishes not to appear blatantly intellectually dishonest, he should shut up and accept the consequences instead of pontificating how about everyone else should behave ethically but the Big Kahuna himself is of course excepted. Because Dawkins. And hey, at least he gives free publicity for veganism (which doesn’t cost him anything). I mean, that’s just so him. Being the Dawk means living in an ivory tower and never having to accept uncomfortable consequences of your own theoretical musings. Literally preaching vegetables and eating meat. He’s a vegan just like he’s a feminist: Only in a lip-service way, part time, whenever it is convenient. He’s a “feminist” when the villains don’t belong to his own tribe, and a “vegan” when it doesn’t require any effort, like when he sleeps.
So I posted this in the YT comments. I fully admit to grabbing a few points already raised in this thread (they were good points!).
Pssst – Brian!
You’re not really an omniscient Deity, you just play one on Youtube.
I see it is still common for Dawk Defenders to blame the man’s massive failures on Twitter on the limitations of Twitter itself. They keep appealing to the difficulty of communicating properly in 140 characters. They keep insisting everything would be better if he had more characters! The problem is, it isn’t just ever one tweet. It is almost always a series of tweets, wherein he keeps fucking digging and becomes more antagonistic and makes it clear that the charitable re-interpretations of the tweets are not actually valid. For fuck’s sake, years ago, when he did this several times, he would go make a full-size statement about the Twitter controversy of the week on his website, and the full-size, paragraphs-long article would only confirm exactly what everyone saw in the tweets: he is an insensitive jackass and a knee-jerk anti-feminist who credulously regurgitates whatever nonsense his fellow assholes feed to him, and he continues to give exactly zero shits about people not liking that.
I just find it to be the height of fucking absurdity that other people are still pretending that he is a kind and sympathetic gentleman who is just having difficulty expressing himself properly on that newfangled tweety word netblog. He’s been on Twitter since 2008. 7 and a half fucking years. And yet, when convenient, the apologists still pretend Dawkins just doesn’t know how to say what he means on the Twitter! Fuck that absolute fucking dishonest nonsense.
But that 3% is the only part that matters (relatively speaking). I am not out here to make everyone an atheist as a goal unto itself. I out here to make the world into a better place. I am here to make the world into a better place for atheists, for Christians (who will hopefully become atheists, but they still deserve a better world if they remain Christians), for women, for non-cis-gendered people. For Everyone. If Richard Dawkins is going to be a willful impediment in the way of that goal – and right now he is – then fuck him.
To Scott Simmons in 22
Indeed. Dennett is still by all accounts a ridiculously awesome, introspective, individual who happens to be knowledgeable and right about damn near everything I’ve ever seen him say. He’s probably the person I respect most in the movement, with Richard Carrier as a close second.
PS: I still think Hitchens gets something of a bad rap. I would hazard that most of the hate on Hitchens is IMHO is accurate or deserved, but I do understand how he can be controversial on some issues. But Dawkins and Harris? Fuck those guys.
I cannot type. Fix:
I would hazard that most of the hate on Hitchens is IMHO is not accurate or deserved,
Agreement: A Thought Experiment
Imagine a scenario where you have a twin brother. You act very similarly. You think very similarly. You have similar politics, similar etiquette, similar opinions about religion, science, philosophy, and pop culture. You share very similar biases and have almost identical privileges. You go about life the closest of friends, because you just agree about so much. But, every so often, less than 1% of the time, your brother decides to mention how much he hates the Chinese. Just absolutely loathes them. No, not just China as a country, for political or humanitarian reasons, but as an ethnicity as well, for reasons that he insists, at great length, are absolutely not racist. And, less than 1% of the time, he will go off on long rants about the Chinese, occasionally interrupting dinner parties, often scaring off friends within earshot, and certainly scaring off strangers in the supermarket. He will grumble whenever you eat Chinese food, and you never feel comfortable having study groups come over if any of your classmates look even slightly non-European.
Of thousands of things, this is the only major disagreement. It only comes up on average maybe an hour a month, just over 0.1% of the time. Is it wrong to chastise your twin brother? Is it wrong to, following initial criticism and realizing that it is only getting worse and will never change, want to distance yourself from him and go do your own thing? Isn’t doing so reasonable, ethical, and probably best for your own continued ability to lead a happy, healthy life? Or is doing so political correctness run amok, a purity test for belief that divides the Great Movement of Brotherhood and results in only horrible McCarthyite lynch hunts that would make Orwell weep and make the Spanish Inquistion feel inadequate?
Oh, wait, this Thought Experiment isn’t New Atheist certified yet. So, addendum: If you stay with your brother, Muslims will nuke San Diego. Okay, now it is a proper Thought Experiment.
“Oppositional defiant disorder in adults with ADHD”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22100691
Do I win? Am I alpha atheist?
Thank you. I laughed very hard. I needed that.
Enlightenment Liberal:
Why?
He was basically Harris when it comes to Muslims, and he was basically Dawkins when it comes to women. The worst of both worlds.
My suggestion is to either look into it and actually have a solid reason to reject the “hate on Hitchens”, or to not glibly dismiss the criticism of Hitchens out of hand when, bafflingly, you know full well how bad Harris and Dawkins are.
Sorry if last comment sounded too harsh. He was at least as bad as Dawkins and Harris, by my view, but at least he had the excuse of being a polemicist, of it being part of his personality, of being a very complicated person who wasn’t taking on the persona of “Polite Erudite Knower of All Things”. Unlike Harris, he was willing to change some of his opinions about Iraq and torture. And unlike Dawkins, he seemed to actually care about the treatment of women, and frequently gave “empowerment of women” as both a way to “cure poverty” and the one thing that religion consistently stands in the way of and thus makes religion an obstacle to human progress. If only he was still around we could actually make a fair comparison, but it is much harder when all you can do is look at what was said long ago and guess that it would be all the same today.
To anteprepro
I’ll make it short.
As far as I can tell, and I have not looked into it with much detail, Hitchens was a misogynist and sexist. I offer no defense of this position. I would note that I consider it likely that Hitchens would be on our side (relatively speaking) against the Dawkins and Thunderfoots of the world on this issue, even while having his own particular faults. Yes, he’s still a bad person, but AFAIK it’s ridiculous to compare him to Dawkins, Harris, Thunderfoot, and the rest on this issue. Maybe I’m wrong here. I’m open to that.
As for the “Muslim” issue.
Sam Harris has actually said he supports and condones the waterboarding of several Guantanamo inmates. Hitchens actually voluntarily underwent waterboarding, and judging from the article he wrote about the experience, seems quite deadset against the use of waterboarding and torture in every situation.
Concerning Muslims and Islamism, and Sam Harris, here is something that Hitchens has to say:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_urbanities-steyn.html
Yet Steyn makes the same mistake as did the late Oriana Fallaci: considering European Muslim populations as one. Islam is as fissile as any other religion (as Iraq reminds us). Little binds a Somali to a Turk or an Iranian or an Algerian, and considerable friction exists among immigrant Muslim groups in many European countries. Moreover, many Muslims actually have come to Europe for the advertised purposes—seeking asylum and to build a better life. A young Afghan man, murdered in the assault on the London subway system in July 2005, had fled to England from the Taliban, which had murdered most of his family. Muslim women often demand the protection of the authorities against forced marriage and other cruelties.
Finally, I’m not strictly of the position that the war in Iraq was a mistake or unjustified. Let me quote Hitchens again:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/03/how_did_i_get_iraq_wrong_11.2.html
In my own words, yes the invasion, occupation, and destruction of the country of Iraq was a colossal fuck-up, done by people who cared seemingly only about oil and other evil motives. However, Sadam is comparable to Stalin for how many of his own people that he killed, and on that count alone, it seems obvious to me that a military intervention is (potentially) justifiable.
Then again, Many here have called some of my views on some of these subjects horrible and unconscionable, such as my personal position that every Catholic has a (very) small personal moral responsibility for the child rape of their church. Thus, I will have to politely disagree on some of these points, and w.r.t. Hitchens.
tl;dr Hitchens is nowhere near as bad as Sam Harris, who long ago went off the deep end. Dittos seemingly for Dawkins.
And so much for keeping it short.
Also, blockquote fail. Sorry. I missed that in preview. Starting from “Yet Steyn …” to “… and other cruelties.”
@37
I agree. I wonder what percentage of our overall agreement that accounts for. My wife will listen to Mozart, but she thinks he used his talent more to show off than to create the best music he could, and that he was probably an obnoxious shit.
It seems that he’s hit a tender nerve with the self appointed guardians of morals and paragons of virtue on here.
Brian Dalton, rem acu tetigisti.
Ugh. “Hurr hurr, touched a nerve!” On and on and on and on and on and on and on about offence and virtue signalling and blargh, and not a single moment for the rampant irrationality. When did the atheism community decide skepticism was no longer required?
pigdowndog, heh. In relation to tender nerves, what do you imagine motivated Dalton to make his plea as self-appointed guardian of Dawkins’ reputation?
Or, as PZ put it in the OP: “I also think Dalton is being fundamentally dishonest with himself. He cares, too. He cares enough to be moved to post a belittling monologue in which he tells the people who find Richard Dawkins to be unrepresentative of their interests to sit down and be quiet and accept him as their lord and master, their better, more worthy king of atheism.”.
(Were you to take your blinkers off, things might seem different to you)
I agree. Everything would be better if he had more character!
+++
pigdowndog
Thank you for your nuanced, well articulated and substantiated contribution to the discussion!
+++
It’s amazing how much those guys feel entitled to our allegiance, company, support and, let’s not forget, money.
Kinda like Harris: if only he had more context
Dalton is so very late to the party. RD lost any chance of my support when it became apparent that he has known about Shermers rapey tendencies for years, and still considers Shermer a friend. Every time RD has another one of his authoritarian twitters meltdowns he starts attacking women and Islam. He and all his creepy supporters can stay over on their side of the deep rifts, and all the hate they spew is just soft serve straight from a sphincter.
Dalton was one of my sadder unfollows, after the “don’t drink if you don’t want to be raped” video. I really liked Mr. Deity, but I just can’t support him after that. I was hopeful that the video was him dealing with Dawkins, maybe changing his mind, but narp. Sigh.
@John Morales
As to “taking blinkers off” may I suggest you take your own advice.
Dalton isn’t defending everything Dawkins says, if you’ve watched the video.
But he’s right in saying that the vast majority of what Dawkins has contributed to the cause far outweighs the negatives.
There’s too many people on here that are just as bad as the fundamentalist mindset that we all rail against, “I’m right because I’m right”.
Get off your high horse unless you are flawless yourself.
@Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-
“Thank you for your nuanced, well articulated and substantiated contribution to the discussion!”
Glad to help.
No.
According to the people who aren’t his targets and therefore can safely ignore the “negatives” and resulting loads of harassment heaped on them, maybe.
(the last “them” referring to the targets)
pigdowndog @ 71
Exactly which cause would this be? Science? Ok, he did good work in biology and some of his books on evolution are excellent. Reason? His reason goes out the window when he’s criticised and he inevitably responds from base emotion. Emotion isn’t a bad thing, I respect those who can passionately argue their point, but when it blinds you to the point your critics are making it’s a problem. Atheism? I’m an atheist but it’s only part of what I am. Dawkins often seems guilty of seeing it as the be all and end all, the judge of who is worthy or unworthy. I say seems guilty because there are times he sees beyond that. Some of his fans on the other hand are definitely guilty of it and Dawkins does next to nothing to stop them. The fetishism of atheism first, last and always above all else is destructive and leads to too many people being thrown under the bus in it’s service. I spit on this cause.
And Carlie was far more succinct. Refresh is our friend.
Sure, if you’re not a member of a group targeted by those negatives. It’s kinda hard to feel the positive vibes and contributions if you’re being constantly denigrated.
Dalton’s excuse is distinctly thin. It’s just a lot of quick label swapping with just enough snark to attempt to throw you off while he shuffles the good labels towards Dawkins and the rest towards critics. Dawkins said something awkward, panicked and didn’t know what to do afterward? Let’s take that mess and imply his critics are some sort of insecure refugee from a romcom trying to break up with a boyfriend for spurious reasons. The critics are poking at the more openly misogynistic stances Dawkins has gone to great pains to present in public? Let’s redefine REAL diversity magically as putting up with a distinct lack of it. Etc, etc…
Dalton is a salesman. He’s definitely not bad at it but he gives away the game by being too impressed with his own skills. So despite the pitter-patter of tiny words and a cute turn of phrase or six, it’s still just word salad that depends heavily on confirmation bias. And it shows.
What cause? My right to atheism is constitutionally protected, as is the right to religion. I have no problem with religion as a whole. I do have a problem with people who act like rampaging assholes on twitter on a regular basis, and then have the temerity to demand that the same people he targets need to respect his authority.
I hope RD is enjoying his audience of neo-nazis and sad gamer boys. He is one of them, the least he could do is own it. Pigdowndog, Dalton and and all the whingeing, man-baby atheists need to get a clue, and piss off forever.
Lie back and think of England, baby!
Seriously, people need to define that “cause”.
Afterwards I can tell you if it is actually “my cause” and even if it is, I still get to decide whether it’s worth it or not.
My rule of thumb is that any cause that asks minorities to support it while holding back on their own issues so they won’t make a fuss for the sake of the “cause” is not worth it.
pigdowndog:
I did not make that claim, as you seem (heh) to imagine.
Touched a nerve, did I? ;)
Anyway, to reiterate the question you’ve evaded, “In relation to tender nerves, what do you imagine motivated Dalton to make his plea as self-appointed guardian of Dawkins’ reputation?”
Heh. You are a fount of inadvertent irony.
Shorter Pigdowndog: Just take one for the team*
*You’re not really on the “team”, you’re more like the towel boy. The actual team will treat you like shit most of the time but hey, ain’t it great just to be sort of included? Sure we’ll pay lip service to you when when it’s convenient and trot you out to show the other teams what nice guys we are, otherwise…shush.
Surely Dawkins would agree with 97% of what Rebecca Watson says. But somehow he’s not willing to share any kind of platform with her. So why should we let all his many failing slide?
Surely it’s obvious what the cause is? To be seen as equal to any religion or religious believer! Equally worthy of respect! Equally willing to make excuses for rapists! Equally able to ignore or justify the ridiculous ranting of our leaders! Equal! Yeeeaaaaah!
Much as I feel squicky about appreciating some of her quotes these days, I think I have to repeat Greer in saying that equality is not enough in this case. It’s not enough to be equal in regard and equal in irrationality. We have to go beyond and do everything we can to rid ourselves of fallacious thinking, or what’s the point?
Athywren @ 85
I’ve said it before, I expect better from people who should be my peers. That so many of them have let me down over the last 5 or 6 years just makes me profoundly sad. And then the anger kicks back in, atheism for it’s own sake is a waste of my time, may as well be the guy who makes people uncomfortable by pointing out they’re acting like a privileged arse.
pigdowndog
It seems that PZ has hit a tender nerve with the self appointed guardians of atheism.
PZ, rem acu tetigisti.
You mean, just like you who asserts without evidence that “Dawkins has contributed to the cause far outweighs the negatives”?
‘You are a fundamentalism/as bad as the creationists’ has become the ad hom attack of the asshole atheists, but is asserted without any supporting evidence of logic.
“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Funny how these asshole atheists resemble those darn theists they hate so much.
Again, this is pure tribalism: Dawkins and fanboys CONSTANTLY rail against theists for every slight they do. So should we ask Dawkins and people like pigdowndog to “get off their high horse unless they are flawless themselves”?
That would be exactly where we disagree, wouldn’t it?
You remember your introductory logic lessons, don’t you? What do we call it when a person assumes the point in contention as a premise for their argument?
As far as I’m concerned, Dawkins biggest contribution was having a hand in giving us the word “meme”. Beyond that, I could really take or leave him.
Respect is not an algebra problem. Doing good things does not give a person license to then do an equivalent amount of evil. Not only is that asinine, that’s Catholicism. “My son, you have tweeted grievous things about women and incited harassment against your critics. Say ten Hail Sagans and twelve Our Dawkins, and go forth and sin no more.”
Dawkins has written some good books about biology and a book about atheism that is less good in hindsight. He started some organizations that largely fizzled out, but promoted atheism widely without any kind of intersectional concerns. That brings us up to, what, 2009? Since then, his literary offerings have been memoirs and articles in the Guardian and elsewhere, doubling down on odious things he’s said in short-form on Twitter. His foundation got embroiled in legal battles and nobody’s sure exactly what they do, except that it isn’t what they set out to do years ago. He’s increasingly cozied up to right-wing reactionaries online and given his followers license to widen the Deep Rifts by any means necessary. He’s done nothing for science, so far as I can see, and nothing positive for the atheist movement for the better part of a decade.
I don’t subscribe to this balancing the scales of good and evil notion that seems so popular among the defenders of privileged men who done bad, but even if I were, it’s hard to look at what he’s done lately and how it’s trending, and imagine that they’d be in a neutral position for much longer.
pigdowndog/, your “cause” is not my “cause” so fuck you.
Why is it that when the “causes” are 97% similar, or some other invented abstract, “we” are asked to sacrifice our 3% in favour of their cause, but never the other way around? Hey, if our causes are so similar and we should all work together to advance them, then why the fuck do you keep getting in the way and working against our cause? It’s almost as if that 3% is actually indicative of a fundamental and deep difference between our goals that actually puts us in direct conflict.
It drives me up the wall that Dawkins and his defenders, just as Harris’, present this conflicts as if the “attacks” are coming out of nowhere. Here was Dawkins just drinking some tea in his garden and all of a sudden those damn SJWs were calling the poor man names. No. The “attacks” are a RESPONSE to his actions. HE is the one preventing us from working together, getting in the way of our “cause”, creating the conflict, flinging shit at our windows. Take some fucking responsibility.
Immature and self-centered, like children in a playground who cry out because some other child pushed them and forget to mention that they were calling that child cruel names in the first place. Grow the fuck up.
Fuck, sorry. It really does drive me up the fucking wall…i even forget to preview.
Bolded or not,you’re still not wrong
Yep, that’s spot on.
Won’t somebody please think of the
childrenmovement!?“But sheep gotta have a shepherd, I guess, and the sheep who defy the shepherd are gonna get called mutton.”
Is that an original? Or is that a saying somewhere?
“Carry on, my wayward son,
There’ll be peace when you shut up.
Lay your weary head to rest,
Don’t you cry no more!”
I dedicate this lacklustre performance to the Dawk and his 3%.
anteprepro@52 – Exactly right. Those defenses transparently are coming from the same place as bible apologetics – Someone doesn’t want to believe the author of a book they liked is a big meanie, so they fabricate or buy excuses they wouldn’t believe from or about anything else.
Also the thought experiment @56 XD XD XD
davros @70 I thought a few Mr Deity eps I saw were on point and succinct, but the last few I watched were just bad at being funny & not great at making a point. Maybe more effort writing for clarity & editing down the run time would have helped. Anyhow, I didn’t end up feeling too bad about that one. I can imagine it would have been worse if I’d seen more of his good videos at a time before dear muslima got me feeling very sketchy about the whole damn movement.
lanir @79 – Spot on. The weakest arguments from everyone on that side seem to have that as a uniting characteristic – being overly impressed with oneself & therefore unable to see the weakness of one’s reasoning. If you want an example of the polar opposite, Natalie Reed’s writing was almost cumbersome with her thoroughness.
dreaming @92 – Worthy of bolding even if it was accidental & detracted from legibility. Reminds me of what Alex Gabriel termed “TEFLON” – all these TERFy pundits acting like they’re under assault over shit they started.
So, with all this talk of “no one is perfect” and such … are any of these defenders actually agreeing that Dawkins did wrong in these specific incidents?
Or is all that talk just a distraction?
These people constantly avoid discussing the actual dispute, it kind of looks like when christians go “atheists just want to sin”, it’s a distraction to prevent scrutiny of their intellectual position. Same with “you are just doing it for the blog clicks” or whatever.
just to echo what has been said. If there is at question as stated only about 3% difference, which is just a random small percentage for effect and completely unsupported by data, why is it that RD’s critics are the ones being urged to make the sacrifice of their obvious ideals and compromise? And for “THE CAUSE”! Which cause is that exactly it clearly dose not seem like it is universal human rights nor just simply equality.
Or is this cause just some form of a Game of Thrones when we are just being urged to decide who our rulers will be. with no real change in circumstances at all.
My cause if I have one at all is one where there are no rulers, no great leaders or even all wise teachers only truth arrived at through agreement and consensus through testing and evidence
uncle frogy
Wait… what if we’ve misheard? What if we’re not being asked to fall back in line for the cause? What if it’s actually for The Corrs?!
#seriousface
My takeaway from “nobody’s perfect” is usually to think that there’s room for improvement. Maybe not much room, if we’re lucky, but that’s what it implies, because (normally) the claim isn’t meant to be “everybody’s imperfect but as close to perfect as they can be.” Voltaire would have a field day with that nonsense. So, we should try to be understanding, try to help people when they make mistakes instead of punishing them. Sometimes all it takes is to criticize their ideas, to get them to be more reasonable. Of course, if their whole outlook on Life, The Universe and Everything is incredibly fucked up, that’s easier said than done.
But I don’t get how I’m supposed to come to a conclusion like “none of this shit matters, because they won’t be perfect even after they fix all of their fucked up views about X, Y, Z.” (Of course, for someone like Dawkins, considering all the shit he spews, I figure we’d probably run out of alphabets not just English letters, so something like the whole numbers would better, but you get what I mean.)
If I found out that in fact I actually agreed with Dawkins on 97% of everything (or 20%, say), I should probably reexamine my life and ask myself where are all of the places I went wrong, not assume that I’m in good company. He’s probably right (often enough) that the sky is blue, but it wouldn’t hurt to double-check trivial shit like that.
Stuff that requires some kind of careful thought, which doesn’t revolve around the simple fucking idea that evolution is real? He’s pretty fucking terrible (at best useless) about most of that, to be honest. And when the particular concern is stuff that any atheist needs to get about the world in order to be a decent person (where knowing crap about evolution won’t help), he’s got a long way to go on that front and not much time left in his life to do it. So, if anybody can exhibit good responsible leadership about that stuff, it’s not him. It doesn’t matter if there’s an atheist movement or if we’re just a bunch of random people who have practically nothing in common — people like fucking Dawkins aren’t doing anything good for us (or the rest of the planet) by acting as our representatives, however it is that we found ourselves with this asshole speaking and acting on our behalf (though not that long ago, it has to be admitted, many were supporting him enthusiastically). You’d have to be pretty fucking delusional, if you thought his “work” at fighting evolution-deniers could trump all of that, because it’s hard to see how it’s even relevant, much less 97% of what we should care about, much less the sort of thing we should care about above anything else.
@102 Athywren
Thank you…now i’ll spend the next few hours binging on The Corrs…i hope you are proud of the devastation you are causing.
@101 unclefroggy
We are asked to die for our king. The peons don’t matter, they can be sacrificed for the greater good. And just like the king that sends his peasants to die for him, he is baffled that some of them are apparently not too happy about it and don’t find dying for somebody else’s cause quite as glorious as they are told it is.
Can we talk for a moment about what, exactly, “the cause” is that RD is so damn important to?
Can we point to a public policy change that has been made, anywhere in the world, that we can credit directly to the work of Dr. Dawkins?
Are there actually people who were not atheist before meeting or reading Dr Dawkins who deconverted as a result of meeting him? Was there an element of Dawkness that made him instrumental in this, and any other thoughtful atheist writer would not have been just as effective, if not moreso?
Does his reputation as a self-important target of controversy (so intense that it was specifically mocked by South Park of all people) benefit deconversion efforts in some way?
When he rails against the “crimes of Islam” are there actually any fence sitters who thought, well, maybe religion was okay, but since Muslims have honor killings, we should do away with all religion?
All the actual movement work I can think of that he’s ever done are speaking engagements preaching to the choir and fundraising.
Fund raising is important, sure. Especially if the funds are then distributed in a meaningful way, helping atheist litigation as needed, social support for those leaving religion, and paying salaries so that public speakers, acting as a voice for atheism, can make a living at it and don’t need to beg sponsors for funding or occupy all their time with a day job.
But outside of that last point, I can only find small, periodic investments. It appears that the RDF is mostly about making sure that Dawkins and a few select speakers he agrees with earn a generous living on public speaking.
Essentially, my cause is atheism and secularism. My cause is equality and freedom.
Richard Dawkins’s cause is Richard Dawkins.
I’m not going to take one for the team for that cause.
pigdowndog @ 71:
Exactly!
And if women weren’t so damn stupid, and would just be content to sit down and shut up as befits their station, we’d be happy to try to be inclusive to them, as befits our open-eyed feminism.
(Warning: this post has been processed at a facility that also handles bulk sarcasm, and may contain traces. Those allergic should avoid.)
@karpad (#106)
Yes, me. Also, Douglas Adams made that claim, iirc. Although in both cases it was due to Dawkins’ earlier evolutionary biology writings. I deeply hope Adams would have been as disappointed as I am.
@Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia, 105
Muahaha!
Urrrgh. So I’m currently staring at the show notes for Dogma Debate #223, and I have the worst feeling that I’m going to have to cross David Smalley off my Christmas card list. (He was never on my Christmas card list – I don’t actually know him, and I don’t send Christmas cards anyway, so there’s no much point in maintaining a list… but it’s a phrase, isn’t it? Don’t be so picky!) Although, in fairness, I haven’t listened to Dogma Debate in general for a little while now (too busy with D&D podcasts!) nor have I heard this episode yet so it’s entirely possible I’m reacting to a headline that does not reflect the content, which is something I’ve been guilty of in the past. But still… what a headline.
I guess I know what I’m listening to on the bus later, anyway. I hope skepticism really is applied universally. And that the reference to BLM is a massive hint. Because he cannot have bought into the Black Lives Matter = White Lives Don’t Matter and “aaaaaall lives matter!!!” bull – I refuse to believe that until he slaps me in the face with it.
Note to self: stop reacting to headlines.
Not only not half as bad as I was expecting, but generally not bad. Smalley is irritating the eternal piss out of me, but other than that, entirely reasonable – he’s having a conversation with two spoopy skellingtons and letting them speak for themselves. For some reason, I was expecting… well, I was expecting the kind of condescending trash that’s linked in the OP, but that hasn’t materialised. Smalley still very much on the non-existence Christmas card list… even if he is in the running for the gold Not Getting It medal at the moment. (Still, there’s an hour to go, so they might break through and brainwash him to the holy cause, you never know!)
Thanks for all your spittle flecked replies to my perfectly reasonable comment.
Just goes to prove my point about zealotry among the righteous.
pigdowndog
Your dogmatic outright rejection of all our replies without actually addressing any of them is duly noted.
Bye now.
Athywren
Did he explain what warriros are? (I like this new word. And I think it’s good. “Are you a social justice warrior??” “No, I’m a social justice warriro.” Then walk away while they try to figure it out, or keep correcting them when they insist on calling you a social justice warrior.)
@rq
Unfortunately, it seems as if it might have just been a typo. :(
Still! The word is in the wild now, which means it is ripe for abuse by any and all! Linguists of the world – now is your time!!
I always thought of myself more as a Social Justice Rogue…
For those who haven’t come across it: Social Justice Bard
Tsss, dual classing warrior & conjurer is the way to go.
I mean, seriously, if it was possible to open portals directly linking, say, Alep or Piedras Negras to a Trump’s meetings, I’d be having a lot of fun right now (try to wall up this Donald).
Oh, come on… obviously we should all be dual classing as rangers & sorcerers while having pointy ears so we can develop into arcane archers? It’s the only legitimate way, in my exclusively correct opinion.
@109 Athywren
That reminds me of a terrible mistake i made recently. I exposed my brain to a podcast of the Drunken Peasants with Matt Dillahunty. It appeared in my Youtube suggestions, i had never heard of it, saw it had Matt in it and went “oh, ok, let’s see” and holy fucking shit what an awful group of people…i wanted to shake the screen and yell “what the fuck are you doing there matt? run! ruuuuuuun!”. Granted, even though he was being nudged and proded to conform, he didn’t really say all that much that i found objectionable, but nevertheless, a disappointing experience from someone i like.
Oh, and i eventually realised why one of the guys looked familiar, checked and oh yes, it was The Amazing Arsehole, at which point i closed the video and took a shower.
pigdowndog #111
Which of your comments was ?
Where did you make that point about ?
Giliell @115, “I always thought of myself more as a Social Justice Rogue…” is priceless. Haha. I am so stealing this (referencing where appropriate).
Is Social Justice Assassin a thing? Or Cultist? So many options (if not sticking to the usual suspects/core classes).
Once again, you can’t just assume a point which is in contention. Doing so constitutes begging the question.
The problem here isn’t that people are reacting in a zealous manner. The problem is that you waltz in, assert that you’re right, and then storm off in a huff when people don’t automatically agree. That’s not being reasonable. That’s being childish.
pigdowndog is convinced that the worst crime a person can commit is being impolite.
So know that I am calm and reserved when I say this: Richard Dawkins is a bore and racist and rape apologist, and, I would not be surprised, a rapist himself.
By all means, be as calm and reserved in asserting he’s not a rapist as I am in making the claim. Because if you aren’t. If you think slandering the man like that is unfair and I am a bad person for doing that, then clearly I must have touched a nerve, which by extension proves that he is a rapist.
This is you. This is your reasoning, pigdowndog. Outrageous lies should not generate outrage, because being outraged by the outrageous merely proves you’re prone to overreaction, not that such egregious behavior deserves reaction.
@Karpad
Get help mate.
Your “outrageous” claims don’t generate outrage just a bored yawn.
@pigdowndog: Please at least try to understand the point people are making before you answer. You clearly do not get what they are saying to you.
I will sumarise it for you: Your reasoning is so inconsistent and overall poor, you could not reason their way out of a wet paper bag.
To be fair, wet paper bags are quite a serious navigational hazard….